Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

NIRCam yells at cloud: JWST MIRI imaging can directly detect exoplanets of the same temperature, mass, age, and orbital separation as Saturn and Jupiter

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST MIRI imaging at 21 microns can directly detect giant exoplanets as cold as Saturn (about 95 K) around the nearest M-dwarf stars, in every cloudy and clear atmospheric case considered, and does so where NIRCam coronagraphy is blinded…

desk verdict Solid real-data sensitivity study: MIRI F2100W imaging genuinely opens a window to cold giants around the nearest M-dwarfs, but the 70 pc tradespace overreaches by ignoring inner-working-angle losses. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15995 v1 pith:USCE456L submitted 2025-05-21 astro-ph.EP

Rachel Bowens-Rubin , James Mang , Mary Anne Limbach , Aarynn L. Carter , Kevin B. Stevenson , Kevin Wagner , Giovanni Strampelli , Caroline V. Morley
show 4 more authors
Grant Kennedy Elisabeth Matthews Andrew Vanderburg Maïssa Salama
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords directimagingextrasolargaseousgiantplanetsicegiantsJamesWebbSpaceTelescopehighcontrasttechniquesMIRIF2100WcoldexoplanetsM-dwarfstars
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 establishes that plain MIRI imaging at 21 microns — no coronagraphic mask — is the JWST mode best suited to directly detect cold giant exoplanets around the nearest low-mass stars. Using GO 6122 observations of Wolf 359 and EV Lac, it shows MIRI reaches 3-sigma sensitivity to planets as cold as 94 K around Wolf 359 and 114 K around EV Lac, colder than Saturn and Jupiter respectively, for every atmospheric model considered. The reason matters: NIRCam F444W coronagraphy, the usual direct-imaging workhorse, only reaches comparable temperatures if the planet's atmosphere is cloud-free, and cold giants are expected to be cloudy. If the claim holds, a substantial population of Solar-System-like giants that microlensing surveys predict to be common becomes accessible to direct imaging and first-time characterization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the 21-micron photometric band ($F2100W$ on MIRI). Cold giant planets with $T_{\rm eff}$ between 60 and 300 K emit most of their thermal radiation near 20 microns, so their $F2100W$ flux changes by less than a factor of about 0.4 between the clearest and cloudiest model atmospheres, whereas the 4.4-micron ($F444W$) flux changes by more than a factor of 10,000. The argument then runs on a measured-detection chain: reference-star differential imaging with principal-component PSF subtraction yields contrast curves; contrast curves are converted into apparent-magnitude limits; and a custom grid of one-dimensional radiative-convective equilibrium atmosphere models — clear, cloudy with $f_{\rm sed}=8$, and a blackbody 'maximally cloudy' bound — converts those limits into coldest-detectable effective temperatures. The measured spectra of Jupiter and Saturn serve as empirical anchors showing that real cold giants are best represented by cloudy solutions.

What would settle it

A decisive test is an injection-recovery experiment on the actual Wolf 359 MIRI frames: place a model of Saturn's measured spectrum, scaled to 2.41 pc and set at 9.5 AU (about 3.9 arcsec), into the raw frames and run the same PSF-subtraction pipeline; if the synthetic Saturn is not recovered at 3-sigma, the headline detectability claim fails. A second, survey-level falsifier is a complete MIRI F2100W search of every known M-dwarf within 10 pc; if no companion at Saturn-like temperatures brighter than the background limit appears in a statistically complete sample, the combination of the detectability claim and the microlensing occurrence rate is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that MIRI F2100W imaging outperforms NIRCam F444W coronagraphy for detecting planets cooler than roughly 300 K in nearby systems, and the gap comes from cloud physics. In the measured contrast curves, MIRI reaches the background-limited regime near 2.5 arcsec at an apparent magnitude limit of about 15.5–16, which converts to a coldest-detectable effective temperature of 94 K for Wolf 359 and 114 K for EV Lac at 3 S/N. These limits hold for clear, moderately cloudy ($f_{\rm sed}=8$), and maximally cloudy atmospheres alike, because flux at 21 microns is nearly insensitive to clouds. NIRCam F444W matches MIRI only for clear atmospheres; under the $f_{\rm sed}=8$ cloudy model its limit degrades to 185 K for Wolf 359, and a blackbody-like maximally cloudy planet widens the gap beyond 130 K. Anchoring with the measured SEDs of Jupiter and Saturn, the paper shows that a true Saturn analog at Wolf 359 would be undetectable by NIRCam coronagraphy unless clear, but is straightforwardly within MIRI's reach.

Load-bearing premise

The 20-pc MIRI advantage assumes the background-limited sensitivity already holds at the sub-arcsecond separations where 5–30 AU orbits appear around M-dwarfs beyond 20 pc, but the inner working angle and brighter-fatter residuals are not included in that trade space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Around the nearest systems (within 3 pc), MIRI F2100W imaging can detect planets colder than Saturn, including sub-Saturn and ice-giant masses, at separations beyond about 4.8 AU.
  • A Jupiter-temperature planet (124 K) is detectable with MIRI imaging out to about 7 pc, and a Saturn-temperature planet (95 K) out to about 3 pc, independent of atmospheric cloudiness.
  • For M-dwarf hosts within about 20 pc, MIRI F2100W imaging reveals more cold giants than NIRCam F444W coronagraphy; beyond about 61 pc the ordering reverses in favor of NIRCam for hotter planets.
  • Pairing F2100W and F444W photometry on the same planet yields a first-order atmospheric probe: brightness at 21 microns anchors the temperature while 4.4-micron brightness reports cloud cover or chemistry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 20-pc boundary is probably optimistic: the 70-pc trade space applies background-limited magnitude limits at every separation, but at 20–70 pc a 5–30 AU orbit is inside roughly an arcsecond, where PSF-subtraction residuals and MIRI's brighter-fatter effect have not been folded in; applying an inner-working-angle penalty would likely move the MIRI advantage to closer systems.
  • If the brighter-fatter effect is mitigated by matching the detector count of reference stars, the effective inner working angle could approach 0.2 arcsec, extending MIRI searches to 5 AU separations across the full 10-pc sample; this is an extrapolation the paper flags as promising but does not demonstrate.
  • The model grid condenses only water ice; including ammonia and methane clouds in the coldest atmospheres is the natural next test and could shift the F2100W temperature limits by a modest amount at the coldest end.
  • A census of all M-dwarfs within 10 pc with about an hour of MIRI F2100W imaging each should yield multiple Saturn/Jupiter analogs if the microlensing occurrence rate of 1–2 low-mass giants per star is correct; a complete null result would pressure either the occurrence rate or the detectability assumptions.
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 first performance measurements from JWST GO 6122, comparing NIRCam F444W coronagraphy with MIRI F2100W imaging for Wolf 359 and EV Lac, with the goal of detecting cold giant exoplanets at Teff = 60-125 K and separations of 5-30 AU. The authors reduce real JWST data with standard pipelines, compute contrast curves with small-sample statistics, and convert them into effective-temperature detection limits using custom PICASO/Virga cloudy models anchored to measured Jupiter and Saturn spectra. They find that MIRI F2100W imaging can detect companions as cold as ~94 K around Wolf 359 and ~114 K around EV Lac in all atmospheric cases, whereas NIRCam F444W coronagraphy reaches such temperatures only for clear atmospheres. The paper then extrapolates background-limited apparent magnitude limits to a 70 pc tradespace and claims MIRI imaging is advantageous within ~20 pc.

Significance. If the central Wolf 359 result holds, the paper is significant: it is the first demonstration that MIRI F2100W imaging, rather than coronagraphy, can reach the flux levels of Saturn-temperature planets around the nearest M dwarfs, and it outlines a concrete survey strategy for a population that microlensing suggests is common. The use of real flight data, standard pipelines, small-sample statistics, and empirical Jupiter/Saturn anchors is a genuine strength, and the custom cold-atmosphere models will be useful to the community. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions, such as the detectability of a Saturn-temperature companion around Wolf 359 at ~9.5 AU. However, the quantitative extrapolation in Figure 6 is not protected by the measured contrast curves at small inner working angles, and the abstract overstates the mass and age reach. These issues are correctable and do not invalidate the core observational result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2 and Figure 6] The 70 pc tradespace is constructed by applying the background-limited apparent magnitude limits for EV Lac (F2100W = 15.75, F444W = 20.8) at every projected separation and distance. The measured MIRI F2100W contrast curves reach the background-limited regime only at roughly 2.5 arcsec, and Section 3.2 explicitly reports unresolved PSF-subtraction residuals inside <~1.2 arcsec due to MIRI's brighter-fatter effect. For an M4V star at 20 pc, the 5-30 AU separations emphasized in the abstract subtend only 0.25-1.5 arcsec, mostly inside the degraded inner-working-angle region. The claims that 'MIRI F2100W provides a detection advantage that is independent of atmospheric conditions for systems within 20 pc' and that a Jupiter-temperature planet is detectable within 7 pc therefore rest on an unverified extrapolation of small-separation sensitivity. The Wolf 359 result near 4.8 AU (2.0 arcsec at 2.4 pc) is less affected, but Figures 5 and 6 should either fold in the separation-dependent contrast curves or be explicitly labeled as background-limited only.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4.3] The abstract and title claim detection of planets with 'the same temperature, mass, age, and orbital separation as Saturn and Jupiter,' but the analysis measures flux sensitivity at an assumed radius of 1 R_Jup and effective temperature; it does not present a mass sensitivity calculation or evolutionary tracks. Section 4.3 itself states that for Wolf 359, which is less than one-third the age of the Solar System, the 95 K temperature limit corresponds to 'sub-Saturn masses including masses in the ice-giant regime.' A sub-Saturn-mass, ~1 Gyr old object is not the same mass and age as Saturn. The abstract should be revised to claim temperature and orbital-separation analogs, with mass and age qualified, or a mass sensitivity calculation should be added.
  3. [Figure 5 and Section 4.3] The quoted Teff limits (94 K for Wolf 359, 114 K for EV Lac) are presented without propagated uncertainties. The conversion from measured contrast to effective temperature depends on the assumed planetary radius, the model grid (fsed, [M/H] = +0.5), and the measured contrast values, none of which enter the figure as error bars or ranges. Because these numbers are the paper's headline quantitative claims, the authors should quantify the sensitivity of the Teff limits to the model assumptions and to the contrast-curve uncertainties, or clearly state that the limits are model-dependent point estimates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3] There is a typo, 'effective temperture,' and inconsistent spacing in 'Tef f' throughout the section; please proofread.
  2. [Figure 3 and Section 4.2] The figure mixes measured GO 6122 limits with 'approximate' JWST Helpdesk coronagraphic limits and STScI background values; the provenance of each curve should be stated directly in the figure caption.
  3. [References] The reference list has Balmer et al. 2025a and 2025b with the same journal citation (AJ, 169, 209); please verify and distinguish the two entries.
  4. [Section 2] Section 2 reports that the NIRCam observations of AD Leo were not completed, but Section 2.2 lists an AD Leo MIRI exposure time; clarify that the AD Leo MIRI data were used only as reference images.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrase 'same age' is inconsistent with Wolf 359's age of 0.1-1.5 Gyr; consider 'comparable to' or specify that the host-star age is younger than the Solar System's.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor circularity in the cloud-fraction anchor; the central MIRI F2100W claim is independently supported by measured contrast curves and F2100W model fluxes.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, 'Anchors from Solar System planets']
    "Jupiter’s flux at F444W (2.20µJy) corresponding to T_eff = 124.4±0.3K (Roman 2023) is well matched by a blend of 80.8% of the 125K-cloudy model with f_sed = 8 and 19.2% of the 125K-clear model. Similarly, Saturn’s measured F444W flux (0.0146µJy) at T_eff = 95.0±0.4K (Roman 2023) is best described by 99.5% of the 100K-cloudy model with f_sed = 4 and 0.5% of the 100K-clear model."

    The cloudy/clear blend fractions are fitted to the single F444W flux measurement for each planet, with the cloudy model being, by construction, dimmer at F444W than the clear model. The high cloudy fractions (80.8% and 99.5%) are therefore algebraically forced by the low observed F444W fluxes. The paper then uses this fit to conclude that 'clear atmospheric models alone are insufficient' and that NIRCam F444W detection of cold giants occurs only in the 'unlikely' cloud-free case; this is a restatement of the fitted input rather than an independent prediction. However, the F2100W detection limits are set by the measured MIRI contrast curves and F2100W model magnitudes that vary by only ≲0.4× between clear and cloudy cases, so the central MIRI claim does not reduce to this fit.

full rationale

The central detection claim for MIRI F2100W is not circular: the sensitivity limits are measured contrast curves (Section 3.2), the F2100W planet fluxes are model outputs that are nearly cloud-independent (Section 4.3, Figure 4), and the Jupiter/Saturn comparisons are anchored to observed spectra. The only mild circularity is the cloud-fraction fit in Section 4.2, where the cloudy fractions are solved from the F444W photometry and then used as evidence that F444W is cloud-suppressed; this is a self-confirming parameterization but it does not feed into the F2100W detection limits. The Figure 6 70 pc tradespace applies background-limited apparent magnitude limits at all separations without folding in inner-working-angle degradation; this is an extrapolation limitation and correctness risk, not a circularity. Self-citations to the GO 6122 proposal, prior stellar-age work, and F2100W IWA work are normal references to the program's own data and independent stellar properties, and they are not load-bearing circular justifications. Overall the F2100W sensitivity argument stands on measured data and independent model predictions, so the circularity score is low.

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

The paper relies on several model parameters (fsed grid, metallicity, planet radius, fitted cloudy/clear fractions) and domain assumptions (PICASO equilibrium, water-only clouds, EV Lac representativeness, 20 µm anchoring, host-age equals planet-age). None of these are fully independent external benchmarks; they introduce moderate model dependence into the Teff and mass interpretation, though the raw contrast measurements are empirical.

free parameters (5)
  • sedimentation efficiency fsed = 4, 6, 8 (grid)
    Controls water-cloud vertical extent and optical thickness in Virga/EddySed; chosen by hand; fsed=8 used as nominal cloudy case, but Saturn and TWA 7b have fsed ~3-4.
  • Jupiter cloudy/clear decomposition fraction = 80.8% cloudy (fsed=8) + 19.2% clear
    Fitted to match Jupiter's measured F444W flux (2.20 µJy) in Section 4.2.
  • Saturn cloudy/clear decomposition fraction = 99.5% cloudy (fsed=4) + 0.5% clear
    Fitted to match Saturn's measured F444W flux (0.0146 µJy) in Section 4.2.
  • Planet radius = 1 R_Jup
    Assumed for converting model fluxes to magnitudes in Pandeia (Section 4.3).
  • Metallicity [M/H] = +0.5
    Fixed super-solar metallicity for all model grid points; not varied.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 1D radiative-convective and chemical equilibrium (PICASO) atmospheres are valid for Teff 50-300 K giant planets.
    Section 4.1: models used to convert contrast curves to Teff limits; no non-equilibrium chemistry.
  • ad hoc to paper H2O is the only condensing cloud species in the coldest atmospheres.
    Section 4.1: 'In all cases, H2O is the only condensing species. Future work will explore additional condensates, such as NH3 and CH4'.
  • domain assumption The background-limited apparent magnitude limits measured for EV Lac are representative for M4V stars at all distances in the 70 pc tradespace.
    Section 5.2 uses EV Lac F444W=20.8, F2100W=15.75 to construct Figure 6.
  • domain assumption Jupiter and Saturn spectra can be anchored to models at 20 µm where flux is insensitive to atmospheric conditions.
    Section 4.2: flux scaled to match model at 20 µm before comparison.
  • domain assumption Age of the planet equals age of the host star for mass interpretation.
    Section 4.3 uses Wolf 359 age 0.1-1.5 Gyr to convert Teff to sub-Saturn masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NIRCam yells at cloud: JWST MIRI imaging can directly detect exoplanets of the same temperature, mass, age, and orbital separation as Saturn and Jupiter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/USCE456L

@misc{pith2026250515995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NIRCam yells at cloud: JWST MIRI imaging can directly detect exoplanets of the same temperature, mass, age, and orbital separation as Saturn and Jupiter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/USCE456L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15995}
}
abstract

NIRCam and MIRI coronagraphy have successfully demonstrated the ability to directly image young sub-Jupiter mass and mature gas-giant exoplanets. However, these modes struggle to reach the sensitivities needed to find the population of cold giant planets that are similar to our own Solar System's giant planets ($T_{\rm eff} = 60 - 125$ K; $a=5 - 30$ AU). For the first time, we explore the high-contrast imaging capabilities of MIRI imaging rather than coronagraphy. Using data from the JWST GO 6122: Cool Kids on the Block program which targets nearby ($<6$ pc) M-dwarfs with NIRCam coronagraphy and MIRI imaging, we demonstrate that 21$\mu$m MIRI imaging can detect planets with the same temperature, mass, age, and orbital separations as Saturn and Jupiter. For systems within 3pc, 21$\mu$m MIRI imaging reaches the sensitivity needed to detect planets colder than Saturn ($<95$ K). NIRCam coronagraphy can achieve similar results only in the unlikely case that a cold giant planet is cloud-free. Motivated by these compelling findings, we extend our analysis to evaluate the measured performance of MIRI F2100W imaging versus NIRCam F444W coronagraphy to 70 pc and conclude that MIRI imaging offers the advantage for systems within 20pc. Microlensing surveys predict an occurrence rate as high as 1 - 2 low-mass giant exoplanets per star, suggesting that JWST MIRI imaging surveys of nearby systems may be poised to uncover a substantial population. This breakthrough enables a path towards the first direct characterization of cold giant exoplanets that are analogous to the solar system giant planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15995 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Wolf 359 images from NIRCam (blue) and MIRI (red) before and after PSF subtraction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. NIRCam F444W+MASK335R and MIRI F2100W Contrast Curves. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of Jupiter/Saturn measured spectra with clear and cloudy equilibrium models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Planet brightness estimates for clear and cloudy cold giant exoplanets using equilibrium models: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GO 6122 Sensitivity to Cold Planets Assuming 3 Varying Atmospheric Conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Coldest Planet Detectable by Distance to 3 S/N. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. JWST Coronagraphic Images of 14 Her c: a Cold Giant Planet in a Dynamically Hot, Multi-planet System

    astro-ph.EP 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    JWST/NIRCam imaging detects 14 Her c at 5.7 sigma and revises the system's orbits, supporting a dynamically hot architecture with a possible cold cloudy atmosphere.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S., & Marley, M

    Ackerman, A. S., & Marley, M. S. 2001, ApJ, 556, 872, doi: 10.1086/321540

    doi:10.1086/321540 2001

  2. [2]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 448, 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. C. Johns-Krull, M. K. Browning, & A. A. West, 91, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1011.5405

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1011.5405 2011

  3. [3]

    H., et al

    Argyriou, I., Lage, C., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346490 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration,...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346490 2023

  4. [4]

    O., Kammerer, J., Pueyo, L., et al

    Balmer, W. O., Kammerer, J., Pueyo, L., et al. 2025a, AJ, 169, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb1c6 —. 2025b, AJ, 169, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb1c6

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adb1c6

  5. [5]

    2020, natashabatalha/virga: Initial Release, v0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3759888

    Batalha, N., caoimherooney11, & sagnickm. 2020, natashabatalha/virga: Initial Release, v0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3759888

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.3759888 2020

  6. [6]

    E., Marley, M

    Batalha, N. E., Marley, M. S., Lewis, N. K., & Fortney, J. J. 2019, ApJ, 878, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b51

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b51 2019

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    A., Mukherjee, S., Cushing, M

    Beiler, S. A., Mukherjee, S., Cushing, M. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6759

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6759 2024

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    A., Vos, J

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

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, A&A, 686, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347912

    Boccaletti, A., Mâlin, M., Baudoz, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347912

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Hinz, P

    Bowens-Rubin, R., Akana Murphy, J. M., Hinz, P. M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.03402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.03402

    2023 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    A., Carter, A., et al

    Bowens-Rubin, R., Limbach, M. A., Carter, A., et al. 2024, Cool kids on the block: The direct detection of cold ice giants and gas giants orbiting young low-mass neighbors, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #6122

    2024

  5. [13]

    Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., & Lunine, J. I. 2003, ApJ, 596, 587, doi: 10.1086/377709

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, Into The Spotlight: Unveiling Wide-Separation Sub-Jupiters for Future JWST Characterization, JWST Proposal

    Carter, A., Absil, O., Balmer, W., et al. 2024, Into The Spotlight: Unveiling Wide-Separation Sub-Jupiters for Future JWST Characterization, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #5835

    2024

  7. [15]

    L., Skemer, A

    Carter, A. L., Skemer, A. J. I., Danielski, C., et al. 2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11823, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets X, ed. S. B. Shaklan & G. J. Ruane, 118230H, doi: 10.1117/12.2594501

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

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

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

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, Comptes Rendus Physique, 24, 139, doi: 10.5802/crphys.139 Choquet, É., Perrin, M

    Chauvin, G. 2024, Comptes Rendus Physique, 24, 139, doi: 10.5802/crphys.139 Choquet, É., Perrin, M. D., Chen, C. H., et al. 2016, ApJL, 817, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/817/1/L2

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    B., Mulders, G

    Fernandes, R. B., Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., Mordasini, C., & Emsenhuber, A. 2019, ApJ, 874, 81, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/ab030010.48550/arXiv.1812.05569

    2019

  11. [19]

    Follette, K. B. 2023, PASP, 135, 093001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aceb31

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Lodders, K., Marley, M

    Fortney, J. J., Lodders, K., Marley, M. S., & Freedman, R. S. 2008, ApJ, 678, 1419, doi: 10.1086/528370

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Marley, M

    Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., & Barnes, J. W. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1661, doi: 10.1086/512120

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    2005, ApJL, 627, L69, doi: 10.1086/431952

    Freedman, R. 2005, ApJL, 627, L69, doi: 10.1086/431952

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    O., Bowler, B

    Franson, K., Balmer, W. O., Bowler, B. P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad736a

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J

    Freedman, R. S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/25

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Marley, M

    Freedman, R. S., Marley, M. S., & Lodders, K. 2008, ApJS, 174, 504, doi: 10.1086/521793 NIRCam yells at cloud15

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Rosenthal, L

    Fulton, B. J., Rosenthal, L. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abfcc1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00211. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.00211

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    H., Blair, W., Brooks, B., et al

    Girard, J. H., Blair, W., Brooks, B., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10698, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. Lystrup, H. A. MacEwen, G. G. Fazio, N. Bata...

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    K., Wakeford, H

    Grant, D., Lewis, N. K., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfc3b10.3847/2041-8213/acfdab

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Rothman, L. 2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 240, American Astronomical Society Meeting #240, 217.01

    2022

  22. [30]

    J., Hinkle, K

    Hargreaves, R. J., Hinkle, K. H., Bauschlicher, Jr., C. W., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 919, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/4/919

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    L., et al

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

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    J., et al

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

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Y., Kirkpatrick, J

    Kesseli, A. Y., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Fajardo-Acosta, S. B., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae982

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8cb

    Lacy, B., & Burrows, A. 2023, ApJ, 950, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8cb

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Philipot, F., Rubini, P., et al

    Lagrange, A. M., Philipot, F., Rubini, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346165

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Wilkinson, C., Mâlin, M., et al

    Lagrange, A. M., Wilkinson, C., Mâlin, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.15081, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.15081

    2025 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    E., Leisenring, J

    Lawson, K., Schlieder, J. E., Leisenring, J. M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4496 Lépine, S., Hilton, E. J., Mann, A. W., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/4/102

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Lew, B. W. P., Roellig, T., Batalha, N. E., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3425

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Vanderburg, A., Venner, A., et al

    Limbach, M. A., Vanderburg, A., Venner, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad74ed

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    F., Mordasini, C., Mollière, P., et al

    Linder, E. F., Mordasini, C., Mollière, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833873

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    2010, Exoplanet Chemistry (John Wiley &

    Lodders, K. 2010, Exoplanet Chemistry (John Wiley &

    2010

  35. [43]

    Sons, Ltd), 157–186, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527629763.ch8

    doi

  36. [44]

    S., & McKay, C

    Marley, M. S., & McKay, C. P. 1999, Icarus, 138, 268, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.6071

    1999

  37. [45]

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

    Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., & Goldblatt, C. 2010, ApJL, 723, L117, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L117

    2010 doi

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

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

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

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    G., & Livio, M

    Martin, R. G., & Livio, M. 2012, MNRAS, 425, L6, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01290.x

    2012

  41. [49]

    C., Carter, A

    Matthews, E. C., Carter, A. L., Pathak, P., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 789, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07837-8

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    2014, ApJ, 792, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/97

    Mawet, D., Milli, J., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/97

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    E., Biller, B

    Miles, B. E., Biller, B. A., Patapis, P., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb04a

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Altinier, L., Carter, A., et al

    Millar-Blanchaer, M. A., Altinier, L., Carter, A., et al. 2024, Finding the great sculptors: A Renaissance in Planet Disk Dynamics, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #6012

    2024

  45. [53]

    V., Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/110

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    V., Marley, M

    Morley, C. V., Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/78

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    V., Skemer, A

    Morley, C. V., Skemer, A. J., Allers, K. N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe8b

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    V., Mukherjee, S., Marley, M

    Morley, C. V., Mukherjee, S., Marley, M. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.00758, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.00758

    2024 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    E., Fortney, J

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

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    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

  51. [59]

    N., et al

    Norwood, J., Moses, J., Fletcher, L. N., et al. 2016, PASP, 128, 018005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/959/018005

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    D., Pueyo, L., Van Gorkom, K., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Pueyo, L., Van Gorkom, K., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10698, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. Lystrup, H. A. MacEwen, G. G

    2018

  53. [61]

    Batalha, N

    Fazio, N. Batalha, N. Siegler, & E. C. Tong, 1069809, doi: 10.1117/12.2313552 16

    doi

  54. [62]

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

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

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    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

  56. [64]

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

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

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    2021, AcA, 71, 1, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/71.1.1

    Poleski, R., Skowron, J., Mróz, P., et al. 2021, AcA, 71, 1, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/71.1.1

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    L., Kyuberis, A

    Polyansky, O. L., Kyuberis, A. A., Zobov, N. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1877

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Pickering, T

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Pickering, T. E., Laidler, V. G., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9910, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI, ed. A. B. Peck, R. L. Seaman, & C. R. Benn, 991016, doi:...

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    J., et al

    Rajan, A., Rameau, J., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa74db

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    D., & Marley, M

    Robinson, T. D., & Marley, M. S. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/158

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    Roman, M. T. 2023, Remote Sensing, 15, 1811, doi: 10.3390/rs15071811

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    Sanghi, A., Zhou, Y., & Bowler, B. P. 2022, AJ, 163, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac477e

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    W., Wang, J

    Sanghi, A., Xuan, J. W., Wang, J. J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad769f

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    Saumon, D., & Marley, M. S. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1327, doi: 10.1086/592734

    2008 doi

  66. [74]

    C., & Reid, I

    Shkolnik, E., Liu, M. C., & Reid, I. N. 2009, ApJ, 699, 649, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/64910.48550/arXiv.0904. 3323

    2009

  67. [75]

    J., Morley, C

    Skemer, A. J., Morley, C. V., Allers, K. N., et al. 2016, ApJL, 826, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/L1710. 48550/arXiv.1605.04902

    2016 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    P., Todorov, K

    Stolker, T., Quanz, S. P., Todorov, K. O., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937159

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    2003, ApJ, 588, 1121, doi: 10.1086/374331

    Sudarsky, D., Burrows, A., & Hubeny, I. 2003, ApJ, 588, 1121, doi: 10.1086/374331

    2003 doi

  70. [78]

    Tuomi, M., Jones, H. R. A., Butler, R. P., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.04644. https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.04644

    2019 arXiv

  71. [79]

    R., Challener, R

    Valentine, D., Wakeford, H. R., Challener, R. C., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5c61

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

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

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

    2015

  73. [81]

    2022, A&A, 666, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243379

    Xie, C., Choquet, E., Vigan, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243379

    2022 doi

  74. [82]

    J., Mawet, D., Ngo, H., et al

    Xuan, W. J., Mawet, D., Ngo, H., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aadae6

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.