Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Cloud Atlas: Variability in and out of the Water Band in the Planetary-mass HD 203030B Points to Cloud Sedimentation in Low-gravity L Dwarfs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that HD 203030B, a young planetary-mass L7.5 companion, shows rotational variability with a 7.5-hour period and wavelength-dependent amplitude and phase that the authors attribute to a patchy cloud deck sinking below the…

desk verdict Robust rotation detection for HD 203030B, but the cloud-sedimentation punchline leans on ~2 sigma wavelength differences that the data don't yet carry. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09403 v1 pith:RFN5LVFZ submitted 2019-08-25 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Paulo A. Miles-Páez , Stanimir Metchev , Dániel Apai , Yifan Zhou , Elena Manjavacas , Theodora Karalidi , Ben W. P. Lew , Adam J. Burgasser
show 6 more authors
Luigi R. Bedin Nicolas Cowan Patrick J. Lowrance Mark S. Marley Jacqueline Radigan Glenn Schneider
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords browndwarfsLphotometricvariabilitycloudsedimentationwaterbandrotationperiodlowgravityplanetary-masscompanion
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

Using space-based near-infrared photometry at 1.27 μm and 1.39 μm, the paper shows that the young L7.5 companion HD 203030B varies on a 7.5-hour rotation period. The two light curves differ: the 1.39 μm water-band amplitude is about 1.7 percent versus 1.1 percent at 1.27 μm, and the water-band curve lags by about 56 degrees. The authors interpret this as a patchy cloud layer sitting near or below the level where water vapor becomes opaque, so continuum and water-band light probe different atmospheric depths. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the first sign of T-dwarf-like decoupling of in-band and out-of-band variability in a young low-gravity late-L dwarf, and it offers a concrete mechanism for the unusually large variability amplitudes seen in low-gravity L dwarfs and, by extension, in directly imaged young giant planets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the vertical separation between the top of the condensate cloud layer and the level where water vapor becomes opaque. In older L dwarfs the cloud layer sits above the water column, so all 1.1–1.7 μm variations share one amplitude scaling and one phase. In T dwarfs the cloud deck has sunk below the water band's opacity level, decoupling the two wavelength regions. The analysis uses a shared-period Markov Chain Monte Carlo fit of sinusoids to both light curves to extract the period, amplitudes, and phase lag that place HD 203030B on the T-dwarf side of this divide.

What would settle it

Observe HD 203030B for at least two or three full rotations at the same two wavelengths. If the 56-degree phase lag does not repeat from cycle to cycle, or if the 1.39 μm amplitude is not consistently larger than the 1.27 μm amplitude, the cloud-sedimentation interpretation fails; a stable zero phase lag with equal amplitudes would instead place it in the field-L-dwarf regime. Because a non-sinusoidal spot geometry can also mimic a phase offset, phase-resolved spectroscopy across at least one full rotation would test whether the same physical features produce both light curves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that HD 203030B's rotational modulation is wavelength-dependent in a way that field L dwarfs are not: the 1.39 μm water-band light curve has a larger amplitude (1.7±0.4%) and lags the 1.27 μm continuum curve (1.1±0.3%) by 56±28 degrees. On the authors' interpretation, this is a vertical structure signature: the patchy cloud deck responsible for the continuum modulation sits below the water-vapor opacity level, so the two wavelengths sample cloud features at different altitudes and, in a rotating atmosphere, may trace features at different longitudes. They connect this to the object's cool effective temperature (~1040 K) and low surface gravity, which push the top cloud deck downward relative to the water column while the spectrum still appears L-type. They further contend that this condensate/gas altitude separation can explain enhanced variability amplitudes seen in low-gravity L dwarfs and should make the 1.20–1.34 μm window the most promising place to look for variability in young giant planets.

Load-bearing premise

The inference rests on the roughly two-sigma differences in amplitude and phase between the two filter light curves being real atmospheric signals rather than noise, a non-sinusoidal spot shape, or an artifact of fitting brief and sparsely sampled data with a single sinusoid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured 7.5-hour period adds HD 203030B to the population of young substellar objects with rotation periods around 10 hours, supporting the broader finding that young brown dwarfs rotate more slowly than field-age ones.
  • If the cloud-sedimentation picture is correct, low-gravity L dwarfs and L-type self-luminous giant planets should show their strongest variability in the 1.20–1.34 μm window, which probes deepest into the atmosphere, rather than in the water band.
  • The same condensate/gas separation can explain the enhanced variability amplitudes seen in young L dwarfs relative to field L dwarfs, providing a physical mechanism for a previously tentative observational trend.
  • The effect should not extend to young T dwarfs, because their condensate clouds have already sunk below the dominant gas-opacity levels, so the young-versus-old amplitude enhancement is specific to L dwarfs rather than a universal substellar phenomenon.
  • A cooler effective temperature at fixed spectral type is what pushes the cloud deck below the water column in young late-L dwarfs, meaning wavelength-dependent variability should be more pronounced among the coolest and lowest-gravity L dwarfs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the sedimentation picture is right, the amplitude ratio between the water band and the continuum should grow as effective temperature drops and the cloud deck sinks deeper; a survey of young L dwarfs spanning L0 to L9 would reveal a systematic trend in this ratio.
  • The 56-degree phase lag, if real, implies the cloud pattern at water-band heights trails the deeper continuum pattern by about 15 percent of a rotation; adding a third, even deeper window near 1.2 μm would test whether the lag increases with altitude separation.
  • Because the light curve spans just over one rotation and the 7.5-hour period is close to five times the spacecraft orbit, a longer campaign or a contemporaneous ground-based J-band light curve would cleanly separate the rotation signal from any orbital systematic.
  • The same mechanism predicts that directly imaged young planets, observed at favorable inclinations, will show their largest flux modulations in the 1.20–1.34 μm window, which is a concrete wavelength choice for future variability searches on such targets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents HST/WFC3 near-infrared photometric monitoring of the young L7.5 companion HD 203030B in two medium-band filters, F127M (1.27 μm, water-free) and F139M (1.39 μm, inside the water band), over six HST orbits. The authors report a rotation period of 7.5(+0.6/−0.5) h, variability amplitudes of 1.1±0.3% and 1.7±0.4%, and a phase lag of 56±28 degrees between the two light curves. They attribute the wavelength-dependent amplitude and phase differences to a patchy cloud layer that has sunk below the water-vapor opacity level, and they generalize this picture to argue that young low-gravity late-L dwarfs may show T-dwarf-like decoupling of variability in and out of the water band, with implications for the enhanced variability amplitudes seen in low-gravity L dwarfs and young giant planets. The paper also describes grism spectroscopy that was too contaminated by the primary's halo to be usable.

Significance. If the central physical claim holds, the result is significant: HD 203030B would be the first young low-gravity late-L dwarf showing T-dwarf-like wavelength-dependent phase and amplitude behavior, connecting the L/T transition to a cloud-sedimentation effect that depends on surface gravity and effective temperature. The paper is careful in its systematics checks: differential photometry against multiple comparison stars, tests against centroid shifts and sky levels, two independent ramp corrections, and agreement between Lomb-Scargle periodograms and MCMC sinusoid fits. The variability detection itself is well supported. The weakness is that the load-bearing physical interpretation rests on a ~2σ phase lag and a ~1.2σ amplitude difference, with the data covering only about 1.1 rotations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 1] The wavelength-dependence conclusion rests on a phase lag of 56±28 degrees and an amplitude difference of 0.6±0.5%, which the paper itself labels 'marginal' and 'if real.' Because the data cover only ~1.1 rotations and the two filters are sampled with different cadences within each orbit (F127M every 4 images, F139M every 5), a common non-sinusoidal spot distribution could alias into different best-fit sinusoidal phases in the two filters. The comparison-star flatness test rules out a shared systematic, but it does not validate the sinusoidal shape assumption, since the comparison star is essentially flat. I request an injection test: simulate a wavelength-independent non-sinusoidal light curve (e.g., a two-spot or square-topped modulation), sample it with the actual F127M and F139M time stamps, run the same MCMC sine-fitting procedure, and report the distribution of recovered phase and amplitude differences. This would directly test whether a 56° phase offset can arise from shape/sampling effects alone; without such a test, the physical interpretation is not established beyond the null hypothesis of identical light-curve shape.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The abstract states 'We attribute the difference in photometric amplitudes and phases to a patchy cloud layer that is sinking below the level where water vapor becomes opaque,' while Section 3.2 explicitly characterizes the amplitude and phase differences as 'marginal (~2σ)' and conditional ('If real'). Given that the entire physical narrative depends on these differences, the abstract overstates the evidence. The authors should either add the injection-test support requested above or rephrase the abstract, the title, and the conclusions to make the conditional nature of the attribution explicit (e.g., 'may point to' or 'could indicate').
  3. [Section 3.3, Section 3.4] The proposed cloud-sedimentation interpretation is one of several possible geometric/thermal explanations, but the paper does not provide a quantitative plausibility check that a sinking cloud deck would produce the observed 56-degree phase lag and the larger amplitude in the water band. For example, a longitude-dependent temperature pattern or different spot altitudes could reproduce the same photometric signatures. The manuscript mentions thermal perturbations (Robinson & Marley 2014) as an alternative, but does not assess whether the cloud-sedimentation geometry is quantitatively consistent with the observed phase lag. A short model comparison, or at least an order-of-magnitude estimate linking the phase lag to a vertical cloud offset, would substantially strengthen the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] The caption lists the F139M effective wavelength as 1.38 μm, while Section 2.1 and Table 1 give λcentral = 1.395 μm; these should be harmonized.
  2. [Section 2.1] The description 'alternating the F127M and F139M filters every 4 and 5 images, respectively' is ambiguous relative to the stated totals of 78 and 84 images; please clarify the exact sequence per orbit and the total exposure count.
  3. [Figure 2] The comparison-star light curve in Figure 2 appears to be plotted without error bars; please indicate whether the error bars are smaller than the plot symbols or add them for completeness.
  4. [Section 2.2] The grism spectroscopy section is presented in detail, but the data are ultimately not used; consider moving this material to an appendix or shortening it to a brief note, since the current length gives more prominence to the unusable data than they receive in the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the light-curve parameters are measured data products and the cloud-sedimentation interpretation is anchored in external atmospheric models and independent comparative observations.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative results — period 7.5 h, amplitudes 1.1% and 1.7%, phase lag 56 deg — are obtained by fitting a sinusoid to the photometry; nothing in the fitting defines the conclusion in terms of itself. The subsequent attribution to a patchy cloud layer sinking below the water-vapor opacity level is an interpretive comparison with external atmospheric models (Marley et al. 2012; Robinson & Marley 2014) and with previously published HST/WFC3 observations of other L and T dwarfs, not a quantity extracted from the same fit. The paper explicitly flags the wavelength-dependent amplitude and phase differences as marginal (~2 sigma) and conditional ('If real...'), so the interpretive claim is not presented as forced by the fit. Self-citations to the Cloud Atlas program appear when comparing with prior variability measurements, but these are comparative data points rather than a circular justification of the present detection; the central measurement is self-contained and cross-checked against a comparison star and a deterministic ramp model. The main vulnerability is statistical marginality and the sinusoidal ansatz, which are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative measurement of the light curves rests on the fitted sinusoid parameters listed above. The interpretive step relies on previously published ages, effective temperatures, and cloud and opacity models. No new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced, so the invented-entities ledger is empty.

free parameters (5)
  • Shared rotation period P = 7.5 (+0.6/-0.5) h
    From the simultaneous MCMC sine fit to both light curves; this is a measured parameter that anchors the rotation-modulation interpretation.
  • F127M sine amplitude A1 = 1.1 +/- 0.3%
    Best-fit amplitude at 1.27 microns; the wavelength-dependence claim depends on comparing this with the F139M amplitude.
  • F139M sine amplitude A2 = 1.7 +/- 0.4%
    Best-fit amplitude at 1.39 microns; the water-band amplitude is the key quantity used to infer the cloud layer location.
  • Phase lag phi2 - phi1 = 56 +/- 28 degrees
    Difference of MCMC phase posteriors; this marginal, about 2-sigma, quantity carries most of the cloud-sedimentation interpretation.
  • Aperture radius and reference star selection = 2 pixels, R1-R3
    Chosen to minimize photometric scatter; this data-reduction choice could affect the recovered amplitudes if it introduces correlated noise.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption HD 203030B is a 30-150 Myr old L7.5 dwarf with mass 8-15 Jupiter masses and effective temperature 1040 +/- 50 K.
    Taken from Miles-Paez et al. 2017 and evolutionary models; the youth and low-gravity interpretation depends on this prior characterization.
  • domain assumption Lower surface gravity at the same spectral subtype implies cooler effective temperature and different cloud heights, as in Marley et al. 2012.
    This theoretical construct is used in Section 3.3 to reconcile enhanced water-band variability with cloud sedimentation.
  • domain assumption The vertical cloud and water-opacity structure of L/T dwarf atmospheres is described by the adopted equilibrium cloud models, such as Ackerman and Marley 2001 and Yang et al. 2015.
    The interpretation maps the observed wavelength dependence onto cloud deck height relative to the water-vapor opacity level.
  • domain assumption The observed photometric periodicity is due to rotation and the light curve shape is adequately represented by a single sinusoid.
    Used in the MCMC model in Section 3.1; the period and phase lag are only meaningful under this shape assumption.
  • domain assumption Differential photometry against reference stars R1-R3 removes the HST charge-trapping ramp and other instrumental systematics.
    The variability claim is built on the flatness of comparison-star light curves and the absence of correlation with detector position and sky level.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cloud Atlas: Variability in and out of the Water Band in the Planetary-mass HD 203030B Points to Cloud Sedimentation in Low-gravity L Dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFN5LVFZ

@misc{pith2026190809403,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cloud Atlas: Variability in and out of the Water Band in the Planetary-mass HD 203030B Points to Cloud Sedimentation in Low-gravity L Dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFN5LVFZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09403}
}
abstract

We use the Wide Field Camera 3 on the {\sl Hubble Space Telescope} to spectrophotometrically monitor the young L7.5 companion HD~203030B. Our time series reveal photometric variability at 1.27\,$\mu$m and 1.39\,$\mu$m on time scales compatible with rotation. We find a rotation period of $7.5^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ h: comparable to those observed in other brown dwarfs and planetary-mass companions younger than 300 Myr. We measure variability amplitudes of $1.1\pm0.3\%$ (1.27\,$\mu$m) and $1.7\pm0.4\%$ (1.39\,$\mu$m), and a phase lag of 56$^\circ\pm$28$^\circ$ between the two light curves. We attribute the difference in photometric amplitudes and phases to a patchy cloud layer that is sinking below the level where water vapor becomes opaque. HD 203030B and the few other known variable young late-L dwarfs are unlike warmer (earlier-type and/or older) L dwarfs, for which variability is much less wavelength-dependent across the 1.1--1.7$\mu$m region. We further suggest that a sinking of the top-most cloud deck below the level where water or carbon monoxide gas become opaque may also explain the often enhanced variability amplitudes of even earlier-type low-gravity L dwarfs. Because these condensate and gas opacity levels are already well-differentiated in T dwarfs, we do not expect the same variability amplitude enhancement in young vs.\ old T dwarfs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09403 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. WFC3 F127M-band images of HD 203030B at each of the two spacecraft orientations (panels A and B). Panel C shows the primary star and its halo after median-combining all aligned images. The result of subtracting this image from the science images is shown in panel D. The six reference stars R1–R6 considered for our flux calibration are also shown in the bottom right panel. Similar data were also collected and analyze… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalized light curves of HD 203030B (black symbols) at 1.27µm (top) and 1.39µm (bottom). The nor￾malized light curves of comparison star R2 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Raw 2D WFC3 spectrum of HD 203030A and B. The locations of the spectra of the primary and the secondary are enclosed in white dotted rectangles. The larger solid rectangle regions ‘A’ and ‘B’ are positioned symmetri￾cally around the trace of the primary, and were used for background subtraction. Region B was mirrored around the trace of the primary and subtracted from region A, using different scaling factors a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized fluxes of HD 203030B (F127M top, F139M bottom) as a function of the x or y centroid positions on the detector (left, middle), or of the sky level (right). No clear correlation is evident between these parameters and the flux of HD 203030B. Grey, dashed lines…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LS periodogram of the light curves of HD 203030B (red), reference star R2 (blue), and the window function (grey) at 1.27µm (top) and 1.39µm (bottom). The dashed line indicates the 1% false-alarm-probability, calcu￾lated from 104 simulated light curves using our data an…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior distributions of the light curve parameters from our MCMC sine curve fits to the HD 203030B photometry. Indices 1 and 2 denote data at 1.27 µm and 1.39 µm, respectively. We allowed the amplitudes (A), phases (φ), and zero levels (K) to vary uniformly over 0%–…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., & Marley, M

    Ackerman, A. S., & Marley, M. S. 2001, ApJ, 556, 872

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    H., Alexander, D

    Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R., Tamanai, A., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, ApJ, 556, 357

    2001

  3. [3]

    J., & others

    Apai, D., Burgasser, A. J., & others. 2019, in preparation

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 121

    Apai, D., Radigan, J., Buenzli, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 121

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 40

    Apai, D., Kasper, M., Skemer, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 40

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    S., et al

    Apai, D., Karalidi, T., Marley, M. S., et al. 2017, Science, 357, 683 Artigau, ´E., Bouchard, S., Doyon, R., & Lafreni` ere, D. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1534 Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    A., Bubar, E

    Barenfeld, S. A., Bubar, E. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Young, P. A. 2013, ApJ, 766, 6

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    K., Charbonneau, D., D´ esert, J.-M., et al

    Berta, Z. K., Charbonneau, D., D´ esert, J.-M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 35

    work page 2012

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

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

    Biller, B. A., Vos, J., Buenzli, E., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 95

    2018

  2. [10]

    P., Liu, M

    Bowler, B. P., Liu, M. C., Shkolnik, E. L., & Dupuy, T. J. 2013, ApJ, 774, 55

    2013

  3. [11]

    N., & Flateau, D

    Buenzli, E., Apai, D., Radigan, J., Reid, I. N., & Flateau, D. 2014, ApJ, 782, 77

    2014

  4. [12]

    S., et al

    Buenzli, E., Saumon, D., Marley, M. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 127

    2015

  5. [13]

    B., Lunine, J

    Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., & Liebert, J. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 719

    2001

  6. [14]

    2004, A&A, 425, L29

    Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Dumas, C., et al. 2004, A&A, 425, L29

    2004

  7. [15]

    2005, A&A, 438, L29

    Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Zuckerman, B., et al. 2005, A&A, 438, L29

    2005

  8. [16]

    J., Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., & Ireland, M. J. 2009, ApJ, 699, 168

    2009

  9. [17]

    K., Riedel, A

    Faherty, J. K., Riedel, A. R., Cruz, K. L., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 10

    2016

  10. [18]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, doi:10.21105/joss.00024 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, doi:10.21105/joss.00024 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Faherty, J

    Gizis, J. E., Faherty, J. K., Liu, M. C., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 94

    2012

  12. [20]

    E., Dettman, K

    Gizis, J. E., Dettman, K. G., Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 104 Water-band Photometric Variability of HD 203030B 11

    2015

  13. [21]

    Gregory, P. C. 2005, Bayesian Logical Data Analysis for the Physical Sciences: A Comparative Approach with ‘Mathematica’ Support (Cambridge University Press) K¨ ummel, M., Walsh, J. R., Pirzkal, N., Kuntschner, H., &

    2005

  14. [22]

    2009, PASP, 121, 59

    Pasquali, A. 2009, PASP, 121, 59

    2009

  15. [23]

    Lew, B. W. P., Apai, D., Zhou, Y., et al. 2016, ApJL, 829, L32

    2016

  16. [24]

    C., Dupuy, T

    Liu, M. C., Dupuy, T. J., & Allers, K. N. 2016, ApJ, 833, 96

    2016

  17. [25]

    C., Magnier, E

    Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., Deacon, N. R., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L20

    2013

  18. [26]

    2006, Chemistry of Low Mass Substellar Objects, ed

    Lodders, K., & Fegley, Jr., B. 2006, Chemistry of Low Mass Substellar Objects, ed. Mason, J. W. (Springer Verlag), 1

    2006

  19. [27]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447

    1976

  20. [28]

    L., Patten, B

    Luhman, K. L., Patten, B. M., Marengo, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, 570

    2007

  21. [29]

    Townsend, J. A. 2010, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7731, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2010: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, 77310Z

    2010

  22. [30]

    E., & Bell, C

    Mamajek, E. E., & Bell, C. P. M. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2169

    2014

  23. [31]

    2018, AJ, 155, 11

    Manjavacas, E., Apai, D., Zhou, Y., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 11

    2018

  24. [32]

    Manjavacas, E., Apai, D., Lew, B. W. P., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L15

    2019

  25. [33]

    S., Saumon, D., Cushing, M., et al

    Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Cushing, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 135

    2012

  26. [34]

    A., & Hillenbrand, L

    Metchev, S. A., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2006, ApJ, 651, 1166

    2006

  27. [35]

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

    Metchev, S. A., Heinze, A., Apai, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 154 Miles-P´ aez, P. A., Metchev, S., Luhman, K. L., Marengo, M., & Hulsebus, A. 2017, AJ, 154, 262

    2015

  28. [36]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 75

    Radigan, J., Lafreni` ere, D., Jayawardhana, R., & Artigau, E. 2014, ApJ, 793, 75

    2014

  29. [37]

    N., Gizis, J

    Reid, I. N., Gizis, J. E., & Hawley, S. L. 2002, AJ, 124, 2721

    2002

  30. [38]

    D., & Marley, M

    Robinson, T. D., & Marley, M. S. 2014, ApJ, 785, 158

    2014

  31. [39]

    Saumon, D., & Marley, M. S. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1327

    2008

  32. [40]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835

    1982

  33. [41]

    D., & Shkolnik, E

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Shkolnik, E. L. 2018, AJ, 155, 238

    2018

  34. [42]

    2015, ApJL, 809, L29

    Scholz, A., Kostov, V., Jayawardhana, R., & Muˇ zi´ c, K. 2015, ApJL, 809, L29

    2015

  35. [43]

    1986, in Proc

    Tody, D. 1986, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733

    1986

  36. [44]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  37. [45]

    1996, A&A, 308, L29

    Tsuji, T., Ohnaka, K., Aoki, W., & Nakajima, T. 1996, A&A, 308, L29

    1996

  38. [46]

    M., Allers, K

    Vos, J. M., Allers, K. N., Biller, B. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1041

    2018

  39. [47]

    S., et al

    Yang, H., Apai, D., Marley, M. S., et al. 2015, ApJL, 798, L13 —. 2016, ApJ, 826, 8

    2015

  40. [48]

    Zhou, Y., Apai, D., Lew, B. W. P., & Schneider, G. 2017, AJ, 153, 243

    2017

  41. [49]

    Showman, A. P. 2016, ApJ, 818, 176

    2016

  42. [50]

    2018, AJ, 155, 132

    Zhou, Y., Apai, D., Metchev, S., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 132

    2018

  43. [51]

    Zhou, Y., Apai, D., Lew, B. W. P., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 128

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.