Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 135 references

A Survey Of Model Fits to Brown Dwarf Spectra Through the L-T Sequence

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Clouds shape near-infrared brown dwarf spectra more than disequilibrium chemistry, and silicate clouds persist through late T types.

desk verdict A careful, large-sample model-fit survey that is a useful benchmark, but the headline claim about clouds vs. disequilibrium chemistry is stronger than the grids can support. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00978 v1 pith:EDMTHJUR submitted 2025-05-02 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Savanah K. Turner , Denise C. Stephens , Conner B. Scoresby , Josh A. Miller This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords browndwarfsLTnear-infraredspectroscopyatmospheremodelscloudsdisequilibriumchemistryspectralfitting
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

The paper fits archival near-infrared spectra of 301 brown dwarfs, types L0 through T8, with forward atmosphere models from the Sonora and Phoenix families, and uses the best-fit model parameters to map how temperature, gravity, metallicity, cloud properties, and mixing change along the L-T sequence. Its central claim is that clouds imprint near-infrared spectra more strongly than disequilibrium chemistry does: cloudy equilibrium Diamondback models beat cloud-free disequilibrium Cholla models for almost every object, up to the 900 K floor of the Diamondback grid. A second claim is that silicate clouds remain high enough to shape the near-infrared spectrum through the late T types, even though the mid-infrared silicate feature disappears after L8. The survey also reports a temperature plateau across the L/T transition, a steady thinning and sinking of cloud decks, poorly constrained surface gravities, and four spectral morphology families, two of which point to unresolved binarity.

What carries the argument

The fitting machinery is the $G_K$ statistic of Cushing et al. (2008), minimized with Nelder-Mead optimization over forward-model grids: cloud-free equilibrium Bobcat, cloud-free disequilibrium Cholla, and cloudy equilibrium Diamondback models from Sonora, plus Phoenix models with parameterized clouds and mixing. The load-bearing comparison is simply which grid wins the fit: Diamondback wins nearly every object, and that win carries the cloud-versus-disequilibrium conclusion. Composite two-model spectra are used to test binarity for poorly fit objects.

What would settle it

Fit the same 301 spectra with models or retrievals that allow clouds and disequilibrium chemistry to vary together; if cloud-free disequilibrium models match late-T near-infrared spectra as well as cloudy equilibrium models do, the cloud-dominance claim would collapse. A cleaner test: mid-infrared spectra of the same late-T objects that show strong disequilibrium markers such as CO or NH3 while near-infrared cloud opacity is absent would contradict the paper's picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that across 301 L0-T8 brown dwarfs, cloudy equilibrium atmosphere models (Sonora Diamondback) fit near-infrared spectra better than cloud-free disequilibrium models (Cholla) almost without exception, all the way until the Diamondback temperature grid ends at 900 K. The authors read this as evidence that clouds imprint the near-infrared spectrum more strongly than disequilibrium chemistry does, and that silicate clouds remain high enough to affect near-infrared light through late T types even though mid-infrared silicate emission vanishes after L8. The paper also reports that best-fit temperatures plateau near 1400 K across the L/T transition, cloud sedimentation efficiency increases and cloud decks thin and sink with later types, and surface gravity is poorly constrained by near-infrared fits; it further classifies deviant spectra into four morphology families, two of which are likely binary systems.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion assumes the grid comparison isolates cloud effects from mixing effects, but no grid includes both clouds and disequilibrium chemistry simultaneously, and the Cholla grid only covers 500-1300 K, so the relative importance of the two is inferred rather than directly tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If clouds dominate, then near-infrared spectra alone cannot be used to measure disequilibrium chemistry or precise surface gravities without first modeling cloud opacity.
  • Silicate clouds in late T dwarfs should produce detectable near-infrared opacity that mid-infrared surveys miss, so combined near- and mid-infrared fits will be needed to locate cloud bases.
  • The L/T temperature plateau and the blueward J-K swing are consistent with cloud clearing and methane condensation happening at the same stage.
  • Best-fit cloud parameters imply a continuous evolution from thick small-grain cloud decks in L dwarfs to thin deep large-grain clouds in T dwarfs, not an abrupt loss of clouds.
  • Spectral families with flat or double-peaked H bands are likely unresolved L+T binaries, so binary fraction estimates from photometry may miss these systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A model grid that varies clouds and vertical mixing simultaneously might reassign some late-T objects to disequilibrium chemistry, narrowing but not necessarily overturning the cloud-dominance claim.
  • If the cloud-dominance result holds, abundance retrievals of T dwarfs from near-infrared spectra should include cloud priors, otherwise methane and water abundances could be biased.
  • The rising $f_{\mathrm{sed}}$ with later type predicts that silicate cloud opacity should be visible in JWST mid-infrared spectra of early-to-mid T dwarfs, a testable extension of the paper's near-infrared result.
  • The $\log(g)$-metallicity degeneracy on collision-induced absorption offers a path to explain why atmospheric and evolutionary masses disagree; joint fitting of gravity-sensitive and metallicity-sensitive bands could break it.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper fits archival near-infrared SpeX spectra of 301 brown dwarfs (L0-T8) with the Sonora (Bobcat, Cholla, Diamondback) and Phoenix (Brock et al.) forward-model grids. Using the best-fit model parameters as physical estimates, the authors survey how effective temperature, surface gravity, metallicity, cloud properties, and vertical mixing vary through the L-T sequence, and benchmark their Teff and log g values against the evolutionary-model results of Sanghi et al. (2023). The main headline claim is that clouds have a more significant impact on near-infrared spectra than disequilibrium chemistry, and that silicate clouds influence the near-infrared through the late T types. The paper also identifies four spectral 'families' (triangular H-band, plateaued H-band, double-peaked H-band, and blue early T dwarfs) and discusses binarity and cloud-clearing as explanations.

Significance. If the headline claim holds, the paper would establish that near-infrared brown dwarf spectra are primarily shaped by cloud opacity rather than disequilibrium carbon chemistry, and that silicate cloud layers persist deeper into the T sequence than mid-infrared silicate emission features suggest. The survey's strengths are its large sample size, the use of an external evolutionary benchmark for Teff, the transparent treatment of grid-resolution limitations, and the public availability of fit products and heat maps on Zenodo. The paper is also candid about key limitations, including the absence of a Sonora grid that combines clouds and disequilibrium chemistry and the poor constraint on log g. However, the central cloud-versus-disequilibrium ranking and the 'clouds through late T' claim require additional analysis or substantial softening before they are fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.1, §5.6, Table 1] The headline claim that clouds have a more significant impact on near-infrared spectra than disequilibrium chemistry is not cleanly supported by the model-selection comparison presented here. Diamondback models include clouds but assume chemical equilibrium, while Cholla models include disequilibrium chemistry but are cloudless; the two grids also differ in metallicity options and temperature coverage. A preference for Diamondback could therefore reflect greater grid flexibility rather than the physical dominance of cloud opacity. The manuscript acknowledges this in §5.6, but the abstract and Conclusion item 1 state the ranking without that caveat. The paper should either reframe the claim as 'the currently available cloudy equilibrium grids fit these spectra better than the currently available cloudless disequilibrium grids,' or add a controlled comparison. One viable path is to use the Phoenix grid described in §3.2, which does include both cloud parameters and log Kzz, and compare models at fixed cloud parameters while varying Kzz and vice versa; another is to use the fsed='nc' (no-cloud) option within Diamondback as an in-grid equilibrium control. Until such a comparison is shown, the relative-impact conclusion is underdetermined.
  2. [§5.5, Fig. 10, Conclusion item 6] The inference that silicate clouds influence the near-infrared spectrum through the late T types is weakened by the Diamondback temperature floor at 900 K. The persistence of fsed=8 into the mid- and late-T bins is cited in §5.5 as evidence that silicate clouds remain high enough to affect the near-infrared, but for any object whose best-fit temperature is at or below 900 K, no cloudy model is available in the Sonora grid. The apparent fsed=8 preference in late-T bins could thus be a boundary effect of the grid rather than evidence of cloud opacity. Please report the best-fit temperatures associated with the fsed=8 late-T points, state how many objects are fit at the 900 K grid edge, and either restrict the cloud-persistence claim to the temperature range actually covered by the cloudy models or present a test that does not rely on a grid boundary.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §2.1] The sample size is given as '~300' in the abstract, 301 in §2.1, and 305 in the metadata abstract; please make these consistent throughout.
  2. [§5.5] The text says 'Both the Diamondback and Phoenix fits show an increase in mean grain size through the T-types,' but Diamondback's cloud parameter is fsed, which is only interpreted as a grain-size proxy. Please phrase this as 'increasing fsed, interpreted as larger grains' to avoid implying that grain size is a direct fitted parameter in Diamondback.
  3. [§6, Tables 2-8] The family membership is described as visually identified after quantitative sorting, but the final membership criteria are not fully reproducible from the R2 values alone. Please state explicitly that the quantitative metrics were used as sorting aids and that final membership required by-eye confirmation.
  4. [References] Several reference entries contain formatting artifacts (for example, 'I&;' in the Brown et al. and Prusti et al. entries, and accented characters rendered as 'Su´ arez'); please use a reference manager or otherwise clean these entries in the final version.
  5. [Fig. 1] The caption states that data points are color-coded by infrared spectral type, but the draft does not show a color bar or legend; please ensure the final figure includes one.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are model-selection and parameter-estimation results with an explicitly acknowledged grid limitation, not inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical model-fitting survey rather than a derivation from first principles, and I find no step in which a claimed result is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The headline claim that clouds matter more than disequilibrium chemistry is a model-selection outcome: Diamondback (cloudy, equilibrium) models outrank Cholla (cloud-free, disequilibrium) models in the fits, and the authors explicitly flag the central confound in Section 5.6: 'Neither the Sonora nor the Phoenix model sets have a complete cloudy, disequilibrium chemistry grid at this time.' That is a validity limitation, not circularity, because the preference for Diamondback is not guaranteed by the definition of either grid and the paper does not claim to have performed a controlled experiment separating clouds from chemistry. The silicate-clouds-through-late-T claim is likewise an interpretation of fitted cloud parameters (fsed, a0, Pc) that the paper consistently labels as best-fit estimates, and the fsed trend is compared with an external study (Stephens et al. 2009) rather than presented as an independent prediction. Teff results are benchmarked against the independent evolutionary-model values of Sanghi et al. (2023), supplying an external check that is not fitted from the same grid. The only self-citation (Stephens et al. 2009, co-authored by D. Stephens) is used for agreement with the fsed trend and is not load-bearing for the central claim. No equation is shown to reduce to another equation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Hence no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's results are inferred by fitting existing model grids to archival spectra. No new physical entities are introduced. The main load-bearing assumptions are the reliability of the forward models and the benchmark, plus the completeness of the grids; the absence of a combined cloudy and disequilibrium grid is the largest stated limitation.

free parameters (2)
  • Best-fit model parameters (Teff, log g, [M/H], fsed, log Kzz, cloud grain size and Pc) = Varied per object; reported in figures and tables
    These are the outputs of fitting model grids to each spectrum and carry the paper's trend claims, especially fsed and log Kzz.
  • Spectrum normalization scale factor Ck = Optimized per object and model
    Ck is optimized by Nelder-Mead in Eq. 1 for every model; it is equivalent to (R/d)^2 and is a fitted constant in the goodness-of-fit statistic.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Sonora and Phoenix forward model grids are accurate enough that best-fit parameters approximate physical properties.
    Used throughout; the paper benchmarks Teff against SANGHI23, but log g and metallicity trends are taken at face value despite known degeneracies.
  • domain assumption SANGHI23 evolutionary-model parameters provide a valid external benchmark.
    Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.1 treat evolutionary models as more robust than atmospheric forward models.
  • domain assumption Not interpolating between model grid points is safer than interpolating.
    Section 4 states this choice and cites Wheeler et al. 2024, meaning reported uncertainties are grid-limited.
  • domain assumption The GK statistic with wi=1 and resampled errors gives meaningful relative model comparisons.
    Section 4 defines Eq. 1; the paper replaces sigma=0 values and drops error terms for six objects, a known caveat.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Survey Of Model Fits to Brown Dwarf Spectra Through the L-T Sequence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EDMTHJUR

@misc{pith2026250500978,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Survey Of Model Fits to Brown Dwarf Spectra Through the L-T Sequence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EDMTHJUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00978}
}
read the original abstract

We fit archival near-infrared spectra of 305 brown dwarfs with atmosphere models from the Sonora and Phoenix groups. Using the parameters of the best-fit models as estimates for the physical properties of the brown dwarfs in our sample, we have performed a survey of how brown dwarf atmospheres evolve with spectral type and temperature. We present the fit results and observed trends. We find that clouds have a more significant impact on near infrared spectra than disequilibrium chemistry, and that silicate clouds influence the near infrared spectrum through the late T types. We note where current atmosphere models are able to replicate the data and where the models and data conflict. We also categorize objects with similar spectral morphologies into families and discuss possible causes for their unique spectral traits. We identify two spectral families with morphologies that are likely indicative of binarity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00978 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Absolute J2MASS magnitude vs (J-K)2MASS color of all the sources in the sample with published parallaxes and infrared spectral types. The data points are color-coded by infrared spectral type. 2.1. Archival Spectra The archival spectra were downloaded from the SpeX Prism Library (SPL) (Burgasser 2014). When the library contained multiple spectra for the same source, only the most recent spectrum with the highest res… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two sample heat plots showing the distribution of the goodness of fit statistic GK in temperature-gravity space. Darker colors correspond to lower values of GK and thus better model fits. The heat plot on the left corresponds to the top Sonora model fits to 2MASSW J0036159+182110 (spectral type L4). The fit was reasonably well constrained in terms of model temperature and gravity, with the best model fit giving a te… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histograms showing the distribution of objects that were best-fit by Bobcat (blue), Cholla (orange), or Diamondback (green) models. The plots show the distribution by (a) infrared spectral type, (b) best-fit temperature, and (c) (J − K)2MASS color index. Nearly every object in our sample was best-fit by a Diamondback model. 5.2. Temperature We next plotted the best-fit model parameters against each other in order to… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plots of best-fit Sonora (left) and Phoenix (right) model temperature vs infrared spectral type. The markers are color-coded by spectral type. The size of the markers corresponds to the number of objects represented by each point. The temperatures plotted are the mean …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plots of best-fit Sonora (left) and Phoenix (right) model temperature vs J-K color, color-coded by infrared spectral type. Again, the temperatures and error bars come from the 100 MC resampling results, and only the nonzero errors are shown. The grey stars again denote…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Box plots showing the distribution of the differences between the best-fit values of Teff found in this work (Sonora models on top and Phoenix models on the bottom) and those found in Sanghi et al. (2023) for the 247 objects shared by both samples. In their paper, SANG…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Box plots showing the distribution of best-fit gravity vs infrared spectral type for the Sonora (left) and Phoenix (right) model fits. The mean value for each spectral type bin is given in red. The two model sets give entirely different trends in log(g), suggesting tha…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Box plots showing the distribution of the differences between the best-fit values of log(g) found in this work (Sonora models on top and Phoenix models on the bottom) and those found in Sanghi et al. (2023) for the 247 objects shared by both samples. In their paper, SA…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The left scatter plot shows the best-fit metallicity [M/H] vs best-fit temperature of the objects in our sample. The markers are color-coded by IR spectral type and sized based on the number of objects they represent. The values of [M/H] and temperature are averages af…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scatter plots (left) and box plots (right) showing the distribution of the best-fit cloud parameters (fsed for the Sonora models and grain size/pressure at the top of the cloud deck for the Phoenix models) vs infrared spectral type. The scatter plot markers are color-…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histograms showing the distribution of best-fit mixing (kzz) vs infrared spectral type for the Sonora (a), Cholla only (b), and Phoenix (c) model fits. A suite of models with a full grid of cloud and mixing parameters is needed to better analyze vertical mixing. 6. IN…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The SpeX spectrum (black) of each Triangular H -band Object is shown with its best-fit Sonora (blue dashed) and Phoenix (orange dashed) models, stacked in order of decreasing adjusted R 2 . The first four digits of the RA coordinates of each object are given to the le…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The objects with Triangular H -Bands peaks are marked in red on top of plots of the Sonora (left) and Phoenix (right) model best-fit temperatures versus infrared spectral types (top) and 2MASS J-K color (bottom). These objects are all L-types and generally fall on the…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The SpeX spectrum (black) of each plateaued H -band object is shown with its best-fit Sonora (blue dashed) and Phoenix (orange dashed) models, stacked in order of decreasing adjusted R 2 . The first four digits of the RA coordinates of each object are given to the lef…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The objects with Plateaued H -Bands peaks are marked in red on top of plots of the Sonora (left) and Phoenix (right) model best-fit temperatures versus infrared spectral types (top) and 2MASS J-K color (bottom). These objects are all early T-types and fall on the warm…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Plots showing binary model fits to the five members of the Plateaued H -Band Family. The models are all Sonora models. The data and composite models are plotted in black and green, respectively, The orange and blue curves give the individual components that were summe…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Plots of Sonora Elf Owl models (Mukherjee et al. 2024) with L/T transition-type temperatures and varied C/O ratios. C/O ratio alone is not enough to explain the flat shapes of the Plateaued H-Band family members, since even the flattest models plotted here still show …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The SpeX spectrum (black) of each Double-Peaked H -band object is shown with its best-fit Sonora (blue dashed) and Phoenix (orange dashed) models. The first four digits of the RA coordinates of each object are given to the left. A reference spectrum made by averaging …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The objects with Double-Peaked H -Bands are marked in red on top of plots of the Sonora (left) and Phoenix (right) model best-fit temperatures versus infrared spectral types (top) and 2MASS J-K color (bottom). All members of this family fall in the L/T transition. The…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Plots showing binary model fits to the six members of the Double-Peaked H -Band Family. The models are all Sonora models. The data and composite models are plotted in black and green, respectively, The orange and blue curves give the individual components that were su…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: 2MASS J-K color is plotted against infrared spectral type. The blue early T objects are marked in red on top of the general sample (grey). The members of this family are all T1 or T2s and are blue for their spectral types [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The SpeX spectrum (black) of each blue early T object is shown with its uncertainty (grey) and best-fit Sonora (blue dashed) and Phoenix (orange dashed) models. The first four digits of the RA coordinates of each object are given to the left. A reference spectrum made…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Plots showing the best binary model fits to the five members of the Blue Early T Family. The models are all Sonora models. The data and composite models are plotted in black and green, respectively, The orange and blue curves give the individual components that were s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., & Marley, M

    Ackerman, A. S., & Marley, M. S. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, 872–884, doi: 10.1086/321540

    doi:10.1086/321540 2001

  2. [2]

    2011, AJ, 141, 203, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/203

    Albert, L., Artigau, ´E., Delorme, P., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 203, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/203

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/203 2011

  3. [3]

    H., Alexander, D

    Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R., Tamanai, A., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, 357–372, doi: 10.1086/321547

    doi:10.1086/321547 2001

  4. [4]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370, 2765–2777, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370, 2765–2777, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    N., & Liu, M

    Allers, K. N., & Liu, M. C. 2013, ApJ, 772, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/79

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/79 2013

  6. [6]

    N., Jaffe, D

    Allers, K. N., Jaffe, D. T., Luhman, K. L., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 657, 511–520, doi: 10.1086/510845

    doi:10.1086/510845 2007

  7. [7]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 Bardalez Gagliuffi, D

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. C., Gelino, C. R., & Burgasser, A. J. 2015, AJ, 150, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/163 Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. C., Burgasser, A. J., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/143 Bardalez Gagliu...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  8. [8]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 733, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/733/1/65

    Marois, C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 733, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/733/1/65

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/1/65 2011

Show all 135 references
  1. [9]

    Best, W. M. J., Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., & Dupuy, T. J. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab84f4

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Best, W. M. J., Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., & Dupuy, T. J. 2021, AJ, 161, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc893

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    M., & Stone, J

    Brock, L., Barman, T., Konopacky, Q. M., & Stone, J. M. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc46

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., Prusti, T., et al. 2021, Astronomy I&; Astrophysics, 650, C3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657e

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    2008, Physics Today

    Burgasser, A. 2008, Physics Today

    2008

  6. [14]

    Burgasser, A. J. 2007, ApJ, 659, 655, doi: 10.1086/511027

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    Burgasser, A. J. 2014, The SpeX Prism Library: 1000+

    2014

  8. [16]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4887

    Low-resolution, Near-infrared Spectra of Ultracool M, L, T and Y Dwarfs. https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4887

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    J., Bardalez-Gagliuffi, D

    Burgasser, A. J., Bardalez-Gagliuffi, D. C., & Gizis, J. E. 2011, AJ, 141, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/70

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Cruz, K

    Burgasser, A. J., Cruz, K. L., Cushing, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1142

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Dhital, S., & West, A

    Burgasser, A. J., Dhital, S., & West, A. A. 2009, AJ, 138, 1563, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1563 34 Turner et al

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    D., & Golimowski, D

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Golimowski, D. A. 2006, ApJ, 637, 1067, doi: 10.1086/498563

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Kirkpatrick, J

    Burgasser, A. J., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Brown, M. E. 2001, The Classification of T Dwarfs. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0101243

    2001 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J., Kirkpatrick, J

    Burgasser, A. J., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Cruz, K. L., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 166, 585, doi: 10.1086/506327

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Kirkpatrick, J

    Burgasser, A. J., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Liebert, J., & Burrows, A. 2003a, ApJ, 594, 510, doi: 10.1086/376756

    doi

  16. [24]

    Dupuy, T. J. 2008a, ApJ, 681, 579, doi: 10.1086/588379

    doi

  17. [25]

    J., Looper, D

    Burgasser, A. J., Looper, D. L., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Cruz, K. L., & Swift, B. J. 2008b, ApJ, 674, 451, doi: 10.1086/524726

    doi

  18. [26]

    J., Looper, D

    Burgasser, A. J., Looper, D. L., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Liu, M. C. 2007, ApJ, 658, 557, doi: 10.1086/511518

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Marley, M

    Burgasser, A. J., Marley, M. S., Ackerman, A. S., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 571, L151–L154, doi: 10.1086/341343

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    J., & McElwain, M

    Burgasser, A. J., & McElwain, M. W. 2006, AJ, 131, 1007, doi: 10.1086/499042

    2006 doi

  21. [29]

    J., McElwain, M

    Burgasser, A. J., McElwain, M. W., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2003b, AJ, 126, 2487, doi: 10.1086/378608

    doi

  22. [30]

    J., McElwain, M

    Burgasser, A. J., McElwain, M. W., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 2856, doi: 10.1086/383549

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    K., Gonzales, E

    Burningham, B., Faherty, J. K., Gonzales, E. C., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 1944–1961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1361

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    K., et al

    Chiu, K., Fan, X., Leggett, S. K., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2722, doi: 10.1086/501431

    2006 doi

  25. [33]

    L., Burgasser, A

    Cruz, K. L., Burgasser, A. J., Reid, I. N., & Liebert, J. 2004, ApJL, 604, L61, doi: 10.1086/383415

    2004 doi

  26. [34]

    L., Kirkpatrick, J

    Cruz, K. L., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Burgasser, A. J. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 137, 3345–3357, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/3345

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    L., N´ u˜ nez, A., Burgasser, A

    Cruz, K. L., N´ u˜ nez, A., Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9d8a

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Lowrance, P. J. 2003, AJ, 126, 2421, doi: 10.1086/378607

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    L., Reid, I

    Cruz, K. L., Reid, I. N., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 439, doi: 10.1086/510132

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, 1372–1395, doi: 10.1086/526489

    Cushing, M., Marley, M., Saumon, D., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, 1372–1395, doi: 10.1086/526489

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    C., Rayner, J

    Cushing, M. C., Rayner, J. T., & Vacca, W. D. 2005, ApJ, 623, 1115, doi: 10.1086/428040

    2005 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Roellig, T

    Cushing, M. C., Roellig, T. L., Marley, M. S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 614, doi: 10.1086/505637

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    Green, G. M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/128

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    C., Harris, H

    Dahn, C. C., Harris, H. C., Vrba, F. J., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1170, doi: 10.1086/341646

    2002 doi

  35. [43]

    J., & Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., & Liu, M. C. 2012, ApJS, 201, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/19 —. 2017, ApJS, 231, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa5e4c

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    K., Burgasser, A

    Faherty, J. K., Burgasser, A. J., West, A. A., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 176, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/1/176

    2010 doi

  37. [46]

    K., Rice, E

    Faherty, J. K., Rice, E. L., Cruz, K. L., Mamajek, E. E., & N´ u˜ nez, A. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 145, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/2

    2012 doi

  38. [47]

    K., Burgasser, A

    Faherty, J. K., Burgasser, A. J., Walter, F. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/56

    2012 doi

  39. [48]

    K., Riedel, A

    Faherty, J. K., Riedel, A. R., Cruz, K. L., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 225, 10, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/10

    2016 doi

  40. [49]

    R., Strauss, M

    Fan, X., Knapp, G. R., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 928, doi: 10.1086/301224 Gagn´ e, J., Faherty, J. K., Cruz, K. L., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 33, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/33 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10....

    2000 doi

  41. [50]

    Gauza, B., B´ ejar, V. J. S., P´ erez-Garrido, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1284

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    R., Knapp, G

    Geballe, T. R., Knapp, G. R., Leggett, S. K., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 564, 466, doi: 10.1086/324078

    2002 doi

  43. [52]

    R., & Burgasser, A

    Gelino, C. R., & Burgasser, A. J. 2010, AJ, 140, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/110

    2010 doi

  44. [53]

    Gizis, J. E. 2002, ApJ, 575, 484, doi: 10.1086/341259

    2002 doi

  45. [54]

    E., Kirkpatrick, J

    Gizis, J. E., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Wilson, J. C. 2001, AJ, 121, 2185, doi: 10.1086/319937

    2001 doi

  46. [55]

    E., Monet, D

    Gizis, J. E., Monet, D. G., Reid, I. N., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1085, doi: 10.1086/301456

    2000 doi

  47. [56]

    L., Covey, K

    Hawley, S. L., Covey, K. R., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 3409, doi: 10.1086/340697

    2002 doi

  48. [57]

    A., Liu, M

    Hurt, S. A., Liu, M. C., Zhang, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b12

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    Karalidi, T., Marley, M., Fortney, J., et al. 2021a, Sonora Cholla: A Grid of Cloud-free, Solar Metallicity Models in Chemical Disequilibrium for the JWST Era, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.4450269 Survey of Model Fits Through the L-T Sequence 35

    doi

  50. [59]

    J., et al

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

    doi

  51. [60]

    R., Delfosse, X., Mart´ ın, E

    Kendall, T. R., Delfosse, X., Mart´ ın, E. L., & Forveille, T. 2004, A&A, 416, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040046

    2004 doi

  52. [61]

    D., Barman, T

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Barman, T. S., Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 639, 1120–1128, doi: 10.1086/499622

    2006 doi

  53. [62]

    D., Dahn, C

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Dahn, C. C., Monet, D. G., et al. 2001, AJ, 121, 3235, doi: 10.1086/321085

    2001 doi

  54. [63]

    D., Reid, I

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Reid, I. N., Liebert, J., et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 519, 802, doi: 10.1086/307414

    1999 doi

  55. [64]

    D., Reid, I

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Reid, I. N., Liebert, J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 447, doi: 10.1086/301427

    2000 doi

  56. [65]

    D., Cruz, K

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Cruz, K. L., Barman, T. S., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 689, 1295–1326, doi: 10.1086/592768

    2008 doi

  57. [66]

    D., Looper, D

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Looper, D. L., Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 100, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/100

    2010 doi

  58. [67]

    D., Gelino, C

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Gelino, C. R., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 253, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd107

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

    R., Leggett, S

    Knapp, G. R., Leggett, S. K., Fan, X., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 3553, doi: 10.1086/420707

    2004 doi

  60. [69]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 2824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts208

    Koen, C. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts208

    2013 doi

  61. [70]

    Liebert, J., & Burgasser, A. J. 2007, ApJ, 655, 522, doi: 10.1086/509882

    2007 doi

  62. [71]

    Liebert, J., & Gizis, J. E. 2006, PASP, 118, 659, doi: 10.1086/503333

    2006 doi

  63. [72]

    D., Cruz, K

    Liebert, J., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Cruz, K. L., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 343, doi: 10.1086/345514

    2003 doi

  64. [73]

    C., Dupuy, T

    Liu, M. C., Dupuy, T. J., & Allers, K. N. 2016, ApJ, 833, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/96

    2016 doi

  65. [74]

    C., Magnier, E

    Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., Deacon, N. R., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/2/L20

    2013 doi

  66. [75]

    2004, Science, 303, 323–324, doi: 10.1126/science.1092865

    Lodders, K. 2004, Science, 303, 323–324, doi: 10.1126/science.1092865

    2004 doi

  67. [76]

    Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2008a, ApJ, 685, 1183, doi: 10.1086/590382

    doi

  68. [77]

    L., Kirkpatrick, J

    Looper, D. L., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Burgasser, A. J. 2007, AJ, 134, 1162, doi: 10.1086/520645

    2007 doi

  69. [78]

    L., Kirkpatrick, J

    Looper, D. L., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2008b, ApJ, 686, 528, doi: 10.1086/591025

    doi

  70. [79]

    P., Burgasser, A

    Lueber, A., Kitzmann, D., Bowler, B. P., Burgasser, A. J., & Heng, K. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 930, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63b9

    2022 doi

  71. [80]

    L., Patten, B

    Luhman, K. L., Patten, B. M., Marengo, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, 570, doi: 10.1086/509073

    2007 doi

  72. [81]

    2019, AJ, 157, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf88f

    Manjavacas, E., Apai, D., Zhou, Y., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf88f

    2019 doi

  73. [82]

    2021a, Sonora Bobcat: cloud-free, substellar atmosphere models, spectra, photometry, evolution, and chemistry, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.5063476

    Marley, M., Saumon, D., Morley, C., et al. 2021a, Sonora Bobcat: cloud-free, substellar atmosphere models, spectra, photometry, evolution, and chemistry, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.5063476

    doi

  74. [83]

    S., Saumon, D., & Goldblatt, C

    Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., & Goldblatt, C. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 723, L117–L121, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/l117

    2010 doi

  75. [84]

    S., Seager, S., Saumon, D., et al

    Marley, M. S., Seager, S., Saumon, D., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 335–342, doi: 10.1086/338800

    2002 doi

  76. [85]

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

    Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Visscher, C., et al. 2021b, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d

    doi

  77. [86]

    H., Smart, R

    Marocco, F., Andrei, A. H., Smart, R. L., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 161, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/6/161

    2013 doi

  78. [87]

    Marocco, F., Jones, H. R. A., Day-Jones, A. C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv530

    2015 doi

  79. [88]

    M., Vos, J

    McCarthy, A. M., Vos, J. M., Muirhead, P. S., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16577, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16577

    doi arXiv

  80. [89]

    M., Muirhead, P

    McCarthy, A. M., Muirhead, P. S., Tamburo, P., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 965, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c76

    doi

  81. [90]

    W., & Burgasser, A

    McElwain, M. W., & Burgasser, A. J. 2006, AJ, 132, 2074, doi: 10.1086/508199

    2006 doi

  82. [91]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/23

    McLean, M., Berger, E., & Reiners, A. 2012, ApJ, 746, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/23

    2012 doi

  83. [92]

    2008, ApJ, 676, 1281, doi: 10.1086/524721

    Looper, D. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1281, doi: 10.1086/524721

    2008 doi

  84. [93]

    E., Skemer, A

    Miles, B. E., Skemer, A. J. I., Morley, C. V., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9114

    2020 doi

  85. [94]

    V., Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/172

    2012 doi

  86. [95]

    V., Mukherjee, S., Marley, M

    Morley, C. V., Mukherjee, S., Marley, M. S., et al. 2024, The Sonora Substellar Atmosphere Models. III. Diamondback: Atmospheric Properties, Spectra, and Evolution for Warm Cloudy Substellar Objects. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.00758

    2024 arXiv

  87. [96]

    E., Fortney, J

    Mukherjee, S., Batalha, N. E., Fortney, J. J., & Marley, M. S. 2023a, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f48

    doi

  88. [97]

    J., Batalha, N

    Mukherjee, S., Fortney, J. J., Batalha, N. E., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8dfb 36 Turner et al

    2022 doi

  89. [98]

    2023b, The Sonora Substellar Atmosphere Models

    Mukherjee, S., Fortney, J., Morley, C., et al. 2023b, The Sonora Substellar Atmosphere Models. IV. Elf Owl: Atmospheric Mixing and Chemical Disequilibrium with Varying Metallicity and C/O Ratios (L- type Models), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.10385987

    doi

  90. [99]

    J., Morley, C

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

    2024 doi

  91. [100]

    S., Geballe, T

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

    1997 doi

  92. [101]

    S., Mart´ ın, E

    Phan-Bao, N., Bessell, M. S., Mart´ ın, E. L., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 831, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12564.x

    2008

  93. [102]

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

    Phillips, M. W., Tremblin, P., Baraffe, I., et al. 2020a, A&A, 637, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937381 —. 2020b, A&A, 637, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937381

    doi

  94. [103]

    S., Hallinan, G., Kirkpatrick, J

    Pineda, J. S., Hallinan, G., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 73, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/73

    2016 doi

  95. [104]

    Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2016, Astronomy I&; Astrophysics, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  96. [105]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/75

    Radigan, J., Lafreni` ere, D., Jayawardhana, R., & Artigau, E. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/75

    2014 doi

  97. [106]

    T., Toomey, D

    Rayner, J. T., Toomey, D. W., Onaka, P. M., et al. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 362, doi: 10.1086/367745

    2003 doi

  98. [107]

    N., Cruz, K

    Reid, I. N., Cruz, K. L., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 1290, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/3/1290

    2008 doi

  99. [108]

    N., Lewitus, E., Burgasser, A

    Reid, I. N., Lewitus, E., Burgasser, A. J., & Cruz, K. L. 2006, ApJ, 639, 1114, doi: 10.1086/499484

    2006 doi

  100. [109]

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

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

    2008 doi

  101. [110]

    C., Best, W

    Sanghi, A., Liu, M. C., Best, W. M., et al. 2023, The Hawaii Infrared Parallax Program. VI. The Fundamental Properties of 1000+ Ultracool Dwarfs and Planetary-mass Objects Using Optical to Mid-IR SEDs and Comparison to BT-Settl and ATMO 2020 Model Atmospheres. https://arxiv.or...

    2023 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Saumon, D., & Marley, M. S. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 689, 1327–1344, doi: 10.1086/592734

    2008 doi

  103. [112]

    Freedman, R. S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/74

    2012 doi

  104. [113]

    J., West, A

    Schmidt, S. J., West, A. A., Burgasser, A. J., Bochanski, J. J., & Hawley, S. L. 2010a, AJ, 139, 1045, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/1045

    doi

  105. [114]

    J., West, A

    Schmidt, S. J., West, A. A., Hawley, S. L., & Pineda, J. S. 2010b, AJ, 139, 1808, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1808

    doi

  106. [115]

    C., Cushing, M

    Schneider, A. C., Cushing, M. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/2/34

    2014 doi

  107. [116]

    C., Burgasser, A

    Schneider, A. C., Burgasser, A. J., Bruursema, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 943, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb0cd

    2023 doi

  108. [117]

    D., & Meusinger, H

    Scholz, R. D., & Meusinger, H. 2002, MNRAS, 336, L49, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05998.x

    2002

  109. [118]

    S., & Cushing, M

    Sheppard, S. S., & Cushing, M. C. 2009, AJ, 137, 304, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/304

    2009 doi

  110. [119]

    2007, PhD thesis, University of Arizona

    Siegler, N. 2007, PhD thesis, University of Arizona

    2007

  111. [120]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  112. [121]

    L., Tinney, C

    Smart, R. L., Tinney, C. G., Bucciarelli, B., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2054, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt876

    2013 doi

  113. [122]

    L., Bucciarelli, B., Jones, H

    Smart, R. L., Bucciarelli, B., Jones, H. R. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3548, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2520

    2018 doi

  114. [123]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 151, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/760/2/151

    Sorahana, S., & Yamamura, I. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 151, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/760/2/151

    2012 doi

  115. [124]

    C., Leggett, S

    Stephens, D. C., Leggett, S. K., Cushing, M. C., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 702, 154–170, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/154

    2009 doi

  116. [125]

    2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Henning, T. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1094, 15th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. E. Stempels (AIP), 561–564, doi: 10.1063/1.3099174 Su´ arez, G., & Metchev, S. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/s...

    2009 doi

  117. [126]

    G., Burgasser, A

    Tinney, C. G., Burgasser, A. J., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2003, AJ, 126, 975, doi: 10.1086/376481

    2003 doi

  118. [127]

    G., Faherty, J

    Tinney, C. G., Faherty, J. K., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/39

    2014 doi

  119. [128]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  120. [129]

    M., Burningham, B., Faherty, J

    Vos, J. M., Burningham, B., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab58

    2023 doi

  121. [130]

    J., Henden, A

    Vrba, F. J., Henden, A. A., Luginbuhl, C. B., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 2948, doi: 10.1086/383554

    2004 doi

  122. [131]

    2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 143, 9–22, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 143, 9–22, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  123. [132]

    J., Casey, A

    Wheeler, A. J., Casey, A. R., & Abruzzo, M. W. 2024, Korg: fitting, model atmosphere interpolation, and Brackett lines. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19823

    2024 arXiv

  124. [133]

    C., Kirkpatrick, J

    Wilson, J. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Gizis, J. E., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 1989, doi: 10.1086/323134 Survey of Model Fits Through the L-T Sequence 37

    2001 doi

  125. [134]

    C., Miller, N

    Wilson, J. C., Miller, N. A., Gizis, J. E., et al. 2003, in Brown Dwarfs, ed. E. Mart´ ın, Vol. 211, 197

    2003

  126. [135]

    C., Marley, M

    Zhang, Z., Liu, M. C., Marley, M. S., Line, M. R., & Best, W. M. J. 2021a, ApJ, 921, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0af7 —. 2021b, ApJ, 916, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8b2

    doi

  127. [136]

    H., Pokorny, R

    Zhang, Z. H., Pokorny, R. S., Jones, H. R. A., et al. 2009, A&A, 497, 619, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810314

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.