Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Atmospheric abundances and bulk properties of the binary brown dwarf Gliese 229 Bab from JWST/MIRI spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that JWST/MIRI spectroscopy of the binary brown dwarf Gliese 229 Bab yields carbon-to-oxygen and metallicity matching its host star, resolving a previously reported anomalous C/O of about 1.1.

desk verdict Solid MIRI binary fit resolves the long-standing C/O anomaly for Gliese 229 Bab, but the quoted statistical errors are smaller than the model grid spacing and need a systematic term before the consistency-with-star claim is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10571 v2 pith:RROIDMX2 submitted 2024-11-15 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Jerry W. Xuan , Marshall D. Perrin , Dimitri Mawet , Heather A. Knutson , Sagnick Mukherjee , Yapeng Zhang , Kielan K. Hoch , Jason J. Wang
show 3 more authors
Julie Inglis Nicole L. Wallack Jean-Baptiste Ruffio
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords browndwarfsGliese229BJWSTMIRIlow-resolutionspectroscopyatmosphericabundancescarbon-to-oxygenratiometallicityverticalmixing
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

This paper analyzes JWST/MIRI 4.75–14 μm spectroscopy of Gliese 229 Bab, the recently resolved binary brown dwarf companion. Modeling the spectrum with a two-component binary model built from the Sonora Elf Owl grid, and assuming both components share one abundance set, it obtains C/O = 0.65 ± 0.05 and [M/H] = 0.00 (+0.04/−0.03), consistent with the host star's abundances. This would resolve the previously reported anomalously high C/O ≈ 1.1 from single-object retrievals of 1–5 μm spectra. The same abundances are recovered with a single-brown-dwarf fit, so binarity does not bias the mid-infrared abundance inference. A sympathetic reader would care because this demonstrates that mid-infrared low-resolution spectroscopy can give reliable atmospheric abundances for brown dwarf companions and, by extension, giant planets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Sonora Elf Owl model grid, a cloudless grid parameterized by $T_{mathrm{eff}}$, $log g$, $log K_{zz}$, C/O, and [M/H], with self-consistent disequilibrium chemistry treated through vertical diffusion. The paper fits the MIRI spectrum as a flux-summed two-component binary, adds a measured K-band flux ratio as an extra constraint, and varies a resolving-power law and quadratic wavelength solution as nuisance parameters. The mid-infrared absorption bands of CH$_4$, NH$_3$, H$_2$O, and CO carry the abundance information, with the 4.75–5.0 μm CO band sensitive to $K_{zz}$.

What would settle it

Refit the same 4.75–14 μm MIRI spectrum with ATMO 2020, Sonora Bobcat, and Sonora Cholla grids under the identical binary model: if the retrieved C/O or [M/H] shifts by more than the reported statistical error, the abundance claim depends on the model choice rather than the data. Alternatively, high-resolution JWST/NIRSpec spectroscopy of the resolved binary that independently determines C/O from individual molecular bands would provide an observational cross-check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mid-infrared spectrum of Gliese 229 Bab, modeled as a binary using the Sonora Elf Owl grid, yields $mathrm{C/O}=0.65\pm0.05$ and $mathrm{[M/H]}=0.00^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ (2σ) under the assumption of shared abundances, matching the host star's $mathrm{C/O}=0.68\pm0.12$ and $mathrm{[M/H]}=-0.02\pm0.06$. The paper reports effective temperatures of $900^{+78}_{-29}$ K and $775^{+20}_{-33}$ K for Ba and Bb, identical vertical diffusion coefficients $log K_{zz}\approx4.0$, and a total luminosity that resolves the earlier under-luminosity tension. It further claims that a single-brown-dwarf fit returns the same abundances, indicating that unresolved binarity does not strongly bias abundance estimates from MIRI data when the components have similar $T_{mathrm{eff}}$. This contradicts the earlier single-object retrieval results of C/O ≈ 1.1 and points to model or data systematics in near-infrared low-resolution retrievals as the cause of the anomaly.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Sonora Elf Owl model grid gives an unbiased mapping from 5–14 μm MIRI spectra to C/O, [M/H], and $K_{zz}$; the paper fits no alternative grid, so a grid bias could shift the abundances beyond the stated statistical errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The previously reported C/O ≈ 1.1 for Gliese 229 B is resolved: the binary has C/O = 0.65 ± 0.05 and [M/H] = 0.00 (+0.04/−0.03), matching the host star's C/O = 0.68 ± 0.12 and [M/H] = −0.02 ± 0.06.
  • MIRI low-resolution (R ≈ 100) spectroscopy can deliver abundance measurements for substellar companions that agree with stellar values, supporting its use for giant planet atmospheres.
  • Binarity does not bias abundance estimates from mid-infrared data when the two components have similar $T_{mathrm{eff}}$: a single-brown-dwarf fit recovers the same C/O and [M/H].
  • The binary model yields effective temperatures of 900 (+78/−29) K and 775 (+20/−33) K and a total luminosity consistent with the measured dynamical mass, resolving the under-luminosity tension.
  • Both components show disequilibrium chemistry with $log K_{zz} \approx 4.0$, in line with isolated late T dwarfs of similar $T_{mathrm{eff}}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: fitting the same MIRI data with alternative cloudless grids such as ATMO 2020, Sonora Bobcat, or Sonora Cholla would quantify model-driven systematic error; the paper acknowledges comparing grids would be informative but does not do so.
  • Editorial inference: if near-infrared retrieval systematics explain the old C/O ≈ 1.1 result, then mid-infrared spectra of other late T dwarfs with reported super-solar C/O should tend to lower, stellar-like values; the paper leaves that as an open question for the broader population.
  • Editorial inference: the shared-abundance assumption could be independently checked with future high-resolution spectroscopy of each binary component; the paper's separate-abundance fit cannot strongly separate the two because the MIRI data prefer the shared model by only about 2σ.
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 JWST/MIRI low-resolution spectroscopy (4.75–14 µm) of the recently resolved brown dwarf binary Gliese 229 BaBb. The authors fit the spectrum with a two-component Sonora Elf Owl model, imposing the same C/O and [M/H] for both components, and also use the measured K-band flux ratio and dynamical mass priors. They report C/O = 0.65 ± 0.05 and [M/H] = 0.00+0.04/−0.03 (2σ statistical errors), consistent with the host star abundances, and argue that this resolves the previously reported anomalous C/O ≈ 1.1 for Gliese 229 B. They also fit a single brown dwarf model and find nearly identical abundances, concluding that binarity does not strongly affect the mid-infrared abundance inference. Additional results include Teff values of about 900 K and 775 K, log g ≈ 5.1 for both components, and log Kzz ≈ 4.0.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper resolves a long-standing discrepancy for a benchmark object: the anomalously high C/O values inferred from near-infrared spectra disappear when high-quality mid-infrared data are analyzed with a self-consistent disequilibrium-chemistry grid. The work also provides a useful demonstration that MIRI LRS can deliver abundance measurements for closely separated brown dwarf binaries and, potentially, giant planets. The manuscript is careful in several respects: it uses a forward-model subtraction of the host star PSF with a public code on Zenodo, validates nod-to-nod consistency, tests the shared-abundance assumption with a distinct-abundance model, and includes a single-versus-binary model comparison. The data and code availability are strengths. However, the headline abundance-similarity claim is currently supported only by statistical uncertainties from a single model grid, and the paper itself acknowledges that grid-spacing and model systematics could be comparable to or larger than the quoted errors.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Table 2] The quoted 2σ uncertainties (C/O = 0.65 ± 0.05; [M/H] = 0.00+0.04/−0.03) are smaller than half the Elf Owl grid spacing reported in the same section (0.11 in C/O and 0.25 dex in [M/H]). The paper states that half the grid spacing could be a more conservative estimate, but then reports central values and errors that do not include this term. Because the subsequent claim of <1σ consistency with the stellar C/O = 0.68 ± 0.12 and the resolution of the previous C/O ≈ 1.1 anomaly depend directly on those error bars, this is a load-bearing issue. Please either quote uncertainties that include the grid-spacing contribution (e.g., by adding half-grid errors in quadrature) or demonstrate with finer-grid or interpolated fits that the posterior peaks are unchanged. If no interpolation is performed, the paper should also state how continuous posterior distributions are obtained from a discrete grid.
  2. [§3.2, §4.4] The C/O and Kzz constraints are driven in part by the CO band at 4.75–5.0 µm, exactly the wavelength region where disequilibrium CO chemistry and CO opacity are most model-dependent. The paper cites Beiler et al. (2024) showing that Sonora Elf Owl has chemistry/opacity inaccuracies for CO2 and PH3, but argues these features fall outside the MIRI bandpass. That does not address potential inaccuracies in the CO band itself. The manuscript also states that comparing alternative grids such as ATMO 2020, Bobcat, or Cholla would be informative but does not perform such a comparison. Please add a quantitative sensitivity test — for example, refit the spectrum excluding 4.75–5.0 µm, or fit with an independent grid — and show whether C/O and [M/H] shift by more than the quoted statistical errors. Without this, the claim that the anomalous C/O is resolved is a statement about this particular model grid rather than about the object.
  3. [§3.2, §5] The distinct-abundance model in Appendix D provides a useful check, but it is presented only as a consistency argument. The paper reports that the shared-abundance fiducial model is weakly preferred with a log Bayes factor of 1.1 (about 2σ), which is not strong evidence in either direction. The broader issue is that the central claim of chemical homogeneity between Ba and Bb and with the host star is conditioned on the shared-abundance assumption. Please state clearly that the evidence for identical abundances is weak, and clarify whether the stellar-consistency conclusion would remain at the same significance if the two components were allowed independent abundances. Table D1 suggests it would, but this should be stated explicitly rather than left implicit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The error-inflation expression is ambiguous in the typeset version: please define whether ε_i is the pipeline variance or standard deviation and write the formula as ε′_i = sqrt(ε_i^2 + 10^b) (or equivalent) to avoid confusion.
  2. [§2.2, Fig. 2] The figure caption states that the error bars have been inflated by the best-fit error-inflation term, but the main text says the data have S/N ≈ 400 relative to background noise and effective S/N ≈ 30–50. Please clarify in the caption whether the plotted errors are the raw pipeline errors, the inflated errors, or the effective errors after systematics.
  3. [§3.2] The statement that cloud opacity is not expected to affect late T dwarf near- or mid-infrared spectra is asserted rather than demonstrated; a brief justification with a citation (beyond the model grid paper) would strengthen this assumption, since the Sonora Elf Owl grid itself is cloudless.
  4. [Throughout] The naming convention is inconsistent: the paper alternates between "Gliese 229 Bab", "Gliese 229 BaBb", and "Gliese 229 B". Please adopt a single notation, e.g., "Gliese 229 Bab" for the binary and "Ba" and "Bb" for the components, and use it consistently.
  5. [§4.5] The statement that the single brown dwarf fit is statistically favored by a log Bayes factor of 4.5 despite the known binary nature is interesting and should be highlighted as a cautionary result for future MIRI-only analyses, perhaps in the summary as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: C/O and [M/H] are fitted to new MIRI spectra against an external forward-model grid, not derived from the target abundances themselves.

full rationale

The central abundance inference is a standard forward-model fit: a new, externally obtained JWST/MIRI LRS spectrum is compared to the Sonora Elf Owl model grid, with C/O and [M/H] as free parameters under broad uniform priors (C/O: 0.23–1.15; [M/H]: –1.0 to 1.0; Table 1). The reported values (C/O = 0.65 ± 0.05, [M/H] = 0.00+0.04/−0.03) are therefore determined by the data through the model mapping, not by construction from the stellar abundances with which they are later compared. The stellar C/O and [M/H] enter only as independent literature measurements used for consistency checking (§4.4), not as priors or definitions. The binary-specific inputs (total mass, mass ratio, K-band flux ratio) come from the authors' prior VLTI/GRAVITY work (Xuan et al. 2024), but those are independent observational measurements used as constraints, and the paper also shows that a single-brown-dwarf fit yields nearly identical abundances, demonstrating that the abundance result does not hinge on the binary priors. The Elf Owl grid has overlapping authorship (Mukherjee et al. 2024) and is the sole retrieval grid used, and the paper explicitly acknowledges model-systematic concerns (half-grid-spacing uncertainties, alternative grids, Beiler et al. 2024 CO2/PH3 issues). These are accuracy and robustness limitations, not circular reasoning: the derived abundances are not contained in the model grid a priori for this object, and the spectral fit is the source of the inference. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by definition, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The ledger lists the fitted atmospheric and nuisance parameters of a standard retrieval, plus the model fidelity and external calibration assumptions on which the central abundance conclusion rests.

free parameters (11)
  • C/O (shared) = 0.65 +/- 0.05
    Global carbon-to-oxygen ratio fitted to the MIRI spectrum; headline abundance result.
  • [M/H] (shared) = 0.00 +0.04/-0.03
    Bulk metallicity fitted to the MIRI spectrum; headline abundance result.
  • Teff,1 = 900 +78/-29 K
    Primary brown dwarf effective temperature fitted in the binary model.
  • Teff,2 = 775 +20/-33 K
    Secondary brown dwarf effective temperature fitted in the binary model.
  • log g,1 = 5.15 +0.15/-0.04
    Primary surface gravity fitted jointly with mass prior and radius.
  • log g,2 = 5.07 +0.04/-0.11
    Secondary surface gravity fitted jointly with mass prior and radius.
  • log Kzz,1 = 3.7 +1.3/-1.4
    Vertical diffusion coefficient for the primary, controls disequilibrium chemistry.
  • log Kzz,2 = 4.0 +2.2/-1.4
    Vertical diffusion coefficient for the secondary, controls disequilibrium chemistry.
  • Error inflation b = fit to data
    Nuisance parameter that scales pipeline errors in the likelihood (Eq. 4).
  • Resolving power r and r0 = r=20.0, r0=-73.1
    Linear R(lambda) model fitted once with a single brown dwarf model and adopted for subsequent fits.
  • Wavelength correction w0, w1, w2 = w0=-0.0864, w1=1.0223, w2=-0.0014
    Quadratic wavelength correction fitted once and adopted for subsequent fits.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The Sonora Elf Owl grid accurately models the MIRI spectra of late T dwarfs, including opacities and Kzz disequilibrium chemistry.
    The central inference is a grid fit and no independent model-grid comparison is run. Invoked throughout Section 3.2 and Section 4.
  • domain assumption Cloudless model atmospheres are valid for these late T dwarfs.
    Section 3.2 states cloud opacity is not expected to affect the near or mid-infrared spectra of late T dwarfs.
  • ad hoc to paper The two brown dwarfs share identical C/O and [M/H] in the fiducial model.
    Assumed in Section 3.2 and Section 4.4; tested with a distinct-abundance fit that is consistent but not strongly preferred (2 sigma).
  • domain assumption The total mass and mass ratio priors from Xuan et al. (2024) are correct.
    Used in Table 1 to parameterize component masses; the priors set the scale for the fitted Teff and log g values.
  • domain assumption The literature host-star C/O and [M/H] values are reliable.
    Section 4.4 adopts stellar C/O from Nakajima et al. (2015) and a weighted [M/H] from eight studies; these values anchor the main consistency conclusion.
  • domain assumption The WebbPSF forward model adequately captures the host star PSF wings inside the LRS slit.
    Appendix A describes the PSF subtraction; residual systematics limit the effective signal-to-noise to 30-50.
  • domain assumption The quadratic wavelength correction and linear resolving power model are sufficient.
    Section 3.1 fits these models and reports a 13-sigma preference for the wavelength correction, but the functional forms are assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Atmospheric abundances and bulk properties of the binary brown dwarf Gliese 229 Bab from JWST/MIRI spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RROIDMX2

@misc{pith2026241110571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Atmospheric abundances and bulk properties of the binary brown dwarf Gliese 229 Bab from JWST/MIRI spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RROIDMX2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10571}
}
abstract

We present JWST/MIRI low-resolution spectroscopy ($4.75-14~\mu$m) of the first known substellar companion, Gliese 229 Bab, which was recently resolved into a tight binary brown dwarf. Previous atmospheric retrieval studies modeling Gliese 229 B as a single brown dwarf have reported anomalously high carbon-to-oxygen ratios (C/O) of $\approx 1.1$ using $1-5~\mu$m ground-based spectra. Here, we fit the MIRI spectrum of Gliese 229 Bab with a two-component binary model using the Sonora Elf Owl grid and additionally account for the observed $K$ band flux ratio of the binary brown dwarf. Assuming the two brown dwarfs share the same abundances, we obtain $\rm C/O=0.65\pm0.05$ and $\rm [M/H]=0.00^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ as their abundances ($2\sigma$ statistical errors), which are fully consistent with the host star abundances. We also recover the same abundances if we fit the MIRI spectrum with a single brown dwarf model, indicating that binarity does not strongly affect inferred abundances from mid-infrared data when the $T_\rm{eff}$ are similar between components of the binary. We measure $T_\rm{eff}=900^{+78}_{-29}~$K and $T_\rm{eff}=775^{+20}_{-33}~$K for the two brown dwarfs. We find that the vertical diffusion coefficients of $\log{K_\rm{zz}} \approx4.0$ are identical between the two brown dwarfs and in line with $\log{K_\rm{zz}}$ values inferred for isolated brown dwarfs with similar $T_\rm{eff}$. Our results demonstrate the power of mid-infrared spectroscopy in providing robust atmospheric abundance measurements for brown dwarf companions and by extension, giant planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: Opacities of the major molecular absorbers in the mid-infrared spectrum of Gliese 229 Bab. The units are cm2 per molecule. Note that the y-axis is inverted. Bottom panel: MIRI LRS spectrum of Gliese 229 Bab in black. The error bars are shown as shaded regions around the spectrum, but are not visible by eye except for the reddest wavelengths. inflation term b following Line et al. (2015), which scales the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: MIRI LRS spectrum of Gliese 229 Bab in black circles. The error bars shown have been inflated by the best-fit error inflation factor. The red dashdot curve shows the best-fit model spectrum, which is the addition of the individual component spectra, Ba (purple), and Bb (teal). Bottom panel: residuals of the fit (data-model) plotted in units of σ differences. Overall, the data are well-fit by the model (< … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histograms show the posteriors for C/O and [M/H] from our Sonora Elf Owl fits to Gliese 229 Bab. The error bars show the measured abundances for Gliese 229A from the literature, whose sources in given in § 4.4. The abundances of Bab and A are consistent at the < 1σ level, demonstrating the power of JWST/MIRI LRS in making robust abundance measurements. C/O = 0.65+0.05 −0.05 −0.04 0.00 0.04 0.08 [M/H] [M/H] = −0.00+0… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Joint posterior distributions for C/O, [M/H], and log Kzz for each brown dwarf from the binary model that assumes the same abundances for Ba and Bb. The dashed lines on the 1D histograms show 95% confidence intervals, while dashed lines on the 2D histograms represent 1…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: the best-fit combined (red dashdot) and component models (light purple and teal) from the binary brown dwarf fit. The models are Gaussian-convolved using constant spectral resolution of 200 for illustration purposes. The shaded grey area indicates the wavele…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 653, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  3. [3]

    O., Pueyo, L., Lacour, S., et al

    Balmer, W. O., Pueyo, L., Lacour, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1689

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad1689 2024

  4. [4]

    A., Cushing, M

    Beiler, S. A., Cushing, M. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace32c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace32c 2023

  5. [5]

    A Tale of Two Molecules: The Underprediction of CO$_2$ and Overprediction of PH$_3$ in Late T and Y Dwarf Atmospheric Models

    Beiler, S. A., Mukherjee, S., Cushing, M. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15950, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.15950

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.15950 2024

  6. [6]

    P., Endl, M., Cochran, W

    Bowler, B. P., Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., et al. 2021, ApJL, 913, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfec8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abfec8 2021

  7. [7]

    M., Dupuy, T

    Brandt, G. M., Dupuy, T. J., Li, Y., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 301, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac273e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac273e 2021

  8. [8]

    Brandt, T. D. 2018, ApJS, 239, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06 2018

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    D., Dupuy, T

    Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., & Bowler, B. P. 2019a, AJ, 158, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab04a8

    doi

  2. [10]

    D., Dupuy, T

    Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., Bowler, B. P., et al. 2019b, arXiv e-prints, 1910, arXiv:1910.01652

    1910 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M., Fischer, D

    Brewer, J. M., Fischer, D. A., Valenti, J. A., & Piskunov, N. 2016, ApJS, 225, 32, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/32

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    K., Visscher, C., et al

    Calamari, E., Faherty, J. K., Visscher, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.11038, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.11038

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    K., Burningham, B., et al

    Calamari, E., Faherty, J. K., Burningham, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9cc9

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2018, A&A, 614, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630136

    Cheetham, A., S´ egransan, D., Peretti, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630136

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Xuan, J

    Costes, J. C., Xuan, J. W., Vigan, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.11523, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.11523

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    J., & Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., & Liu, M. C. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 231, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa5e4c

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., & Ireland, M. J. 2009, ApJ, 692, 729, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/729 —. 2014, ApJ, 790, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/133

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Rice, E

    Filippazzo, J. C., Rice, E. L., Faherty, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/158

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 2702, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1682

    Fontanive, C., Biller, B., Bonavita, M., & Allers, K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2702, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1682

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Franson, K., & Bowler, B. P. 2023, AJ, 165, 246, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acca18

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    P., Brandt, T

    Franson, K., Bowler, B. P., Brandt, T. D., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac35e8

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    P., Bonavita, M., et al

    Franson, K., Bowler, B. P., Bonavita, M., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca408

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    K., et al

    Gaarn, J., Burningham, B., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5761, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad753 Gaia Collaboration. 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/355, doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier.1355

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Gaidos, E., & Mann, A. W. 2014, ApJ, 791, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/54

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Kulkarni, S

    Geballe, T. R., Kulkarni, S. R., Woodward, C. E., & Sloan, G. C. 1996, ApJL, 467, L101, doi: 10.1086/310203

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    C., Burningham, B., Faherty, J

    Gonzales, E. C., Burningham, B., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbee2

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Chen, C

    Gordon, K. D., Chen, C. H., Anderson, R. E., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 696, doi: 10.1086/682260

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    P., & Brandt, T

    Greco, J. P., & Brandt, T. D. 2016, ApJ, 833, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/134

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Gordon, I

    Hargreaves, R. J., Gordon, I. E., Rey, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7a1a

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Hoch, K. K. W., Konopacky, Q. M., Theissen, C. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace442

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    C., et al

    Hojjatpanah, S., Figueira, P., Santos, N. C., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834729

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2020, A&A, 639, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038035

    Hojjatpanah, S., Oshagh, M., Figueira, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038035

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    E., Fortney, J

    Hood, C. E., Fortney, J. J., Line, M. R., & Faherty, J. K. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace32e

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Mandell, A

    Howe, A. R., Mandell, A. M., & McElwain, M. W. 2023, ApJL, 951, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd76

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    R., McElwain, M

    Howe, A. R., McElwain, M. W., & Mandell, A. M. 2022, ApJ, 935, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5590

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Xuan, J

    Hsu, C.-C., Wang, J. J., Xuan, J. W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08312, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08312

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    L., Xuan, J

    Inglis, J., Wallack, N. L., Xuan, J. W., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2771

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    J., et al

    Karalidi, T., Marley, M., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 269, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3140

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    2015, PASP, 127, 623, doi: 10.1086/682255

    Kendrew, S., Scheithauer, S., Bouchet, P., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 623, doi: 10.1086/682255

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    2019, A&A, 623, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., Mignard, F., & Th´ evenin, F. 2019, A&A, 623, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    K., del Burgo, C., Pavlenko, Y

    Kuznetsov, M. K., del Burgo, C., Pavlenko, Y. V., & Frith, J. 2019, ApJ, 878, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1fe9 17

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, arXiv e-prints

    Landman, R., Stolker, T., Snellen, I., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints. http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.13527

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    K., Hauschildt, P

    Leggett, S. K., Hauschildt, P. H., Allard, F., Geballe, T. R., & Baron, E. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 78, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05273.x

    2002

  36. [44]

    Marley, M. S. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 807, 183, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/183

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Marley, M

    Line, M. R., Marley, M. S., Liu, M. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7ff0

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    E., et al

    Lueber, A., Kitzmann, D., Fisher, C. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace530

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    2020, A&A, 644, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039478

    Maldonado, J., Micela, G., Baratella, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039478

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Montes, D., et al

    Marfil, E., Tabernero, H. M., Montes, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A162, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141980

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    S., Saumon, D., Guillot, T., et al

    Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Guillot, T., et al. 1996, Science, 272, 1919, doi: 10.1126/science.272.5270.1919

    1996

  42. [50]

    S., Saumon, D., Visscher, C., et al

    Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Visscher, C., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d Molli` ere, P., Stolker, T., Lacour, S., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 640, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038325

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Morley, C

    Mukherjee, S., Fortney, J. J., Morley, C. V., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18c2

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Kulkarni, S

    Nakajima, T., Oppenheimer, B. R., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 1995, Nature, 378, 463, doi: 10.1038/378463a0

    1995 doi

  45. [53]

    2015, Astronomical Journal, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/2/53

    Nakajima, T., Tsuji, T., & Takeda, Y. 2015, Astronomical Journal, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/2/53

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, A&A, 678, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346585

    Nasedkin, E., Molli` ere, P., Wang, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346585

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03776, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03776

    Nasedkin, E., Molli` ere, P., Lacour, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03776, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03776

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    C., et al

    Neves, V., Bonfils, X., Santos, N. C., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220574

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Geballe, T

    Noll, K. S., Geballe, T. R., & Marley, M. S. 1997, ApJL, 489, L87, doi: 10.1086/310954

    1997 doi

  50. [58]

    1995, Science, 270, 1478, doi: 10.1126/science.270.5241.1478

    Nakajima, T. 1995, Science, 270, 1478, doi: 10.1126/science.270.5241.1478

    1995

  51. [59]

    Kerkwijk, M. H. 1998, ApJ, 502, 932, doi: 10.1086/305928

    1998 doi

  52. [60]

    2020, AJ, 159, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5955

    Oreshenko, M., Kitzmann, D., M´ arquez-Neila, P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5955

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    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. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Clampi...

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    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

  55. [63]

    Clampin, G. G. Fazio, H. A. MacEwen, & J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., 84423D, doi: 10.1117/12.925230

    doi

  56. [64]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3e7c

    Petrus, S., Whiteford, N., Patapis, P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 966, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3e7c

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    W., Tremblin, P., Baraffe, I., et al

    Phillips, M. W., Tremblin, P., Baraffe, I., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 637, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937381

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    Rice, M., & Brewer, J. M. 2020, ApJ, 898, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f96

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    L., Ceva, W., Matthews, E

    Rickman, E. L., Ceva, W., Matthews, E. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347906

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    H., Wright, G

    Rieke, G. H., Wright, G. S., B¨ oker, T., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 584, doi: 10.1086/682252

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    C., Best, W

    Sanghi, A., Liu, M. C., Best, W. M. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acff66

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    R., Leggett, S

    Saumon, D., Geballe, T. R., Leggett, S. K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 541, 374, doi: 10.1086/309410

    2000 doi

  63. [71]

    M., Cifuentes, C., et al

    Schweitzer, A., Passegger, V. M., Cifuentes, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834965

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    G., Mathieu, R

    Stassun, K. G., Mathieu, R. D., & Valenti, J. A. 2006, Nature, 440, 311, doi: 10.1038/nature04570 Su´ arez, G., & Metchev, S. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1205

    2006 doi

  66. [74]

    R., Ruffio, J.-B., et al

    Wang, J., Kolecki, J. R., Ruffio, J.-B., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac56e2

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    D., Brandt, G

    Whitebook, S., Brandt, T. D., Brandt, G. M., & Martin, E. C. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 974, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7714

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, Nature, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08064-x

    Xuan, J., M´ erand, A., Thompson, W., et al. 2024, Nature, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08064-x

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    2024, JWST/MIRI LRS Forward Modeling, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14032760 18

    Xuan, J., Perrin, M., Mawet, D., et al. 2024, JWST/MIRI LRS Forward Modeling, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14032760 18

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    W., & Wyatt, M

    Xuan, J. W., & Wyatt, M. C. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 2096, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2033

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    W., Wang, J., Ruffio, J.-B., et al

    Xuan, J. W., Wang, J., Ruffio, J.-B., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8673

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    W., Wang, J., Finnerty, L., et al

    Xuan, J. W., Wang, J., Finnerty, L., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 962, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1243

    doi

  73. [81]

    W., Hsu, C.-C., Finnerty, L., et al

    Xuan, J. W., Hsu, C.-C., Finnerty, L., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 970, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4796

    doi

  74. [82]

    N., & Tennyson, J

    Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 1649, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu326

    2014 doi

  75. [83]

    J., & Marley, M

    Zahnle, K. J., & Marley, M. S. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/41

    2014 doi

  76. [84]

    A., Line, M

    Zalesky, J. A., Line, M. R., Schneider, A. C., & Patience, J. 2019, ApJ, 877, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16db

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    A., Saboi, K., Line, M

    Zalesky, J. A., Saboi, K., Line, M. R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac786c Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Lane, B. F., Pavlenko, Y., et al. 2004, ApJ, 615, 958, doi: 10.1086/424507

    2022 doi

  78. [86]

    Zhang, Y., Snellen, I. A. G., Bohn, A. J., et al. 2021, Nature, 595, 370, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03616-x

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    C., Marley, M

    Zhang, Z., Liu, M. C., Marley, M. S., Line, M. R., & Best, W. M. J. 2021, ApJ, 921, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0af7

    2021 doi

  80. [88]

    2023, AJ, 166, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf768

    Zhang, Z., Molli` ere, P., Hawkins, K., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf768

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.