Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Metal Polluted White Dwarfs with 21 {\mu}m IR excesses from JWST/MIRI: Planets or Dust?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST shows two polluted white dwarfs with 21-micron excesses that the paper argues are unresolved giant planets rather than dust.

desk verdict A solid new detection paper whose planet-over-dust interpretation is plausible but not uniquely supported; referee it for the data, not for the headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21224 v1 pith:WCW5YM62 submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

John H. Debes , Sabrina Poulsen , Ashley Messier , Susan E. Mullally , Katherine Thibault , Loïc Albert , Misty Cracraft , Érika Le Bourdais
show 8 more authors
Patrick Dufour Tom Barclay J.J. Hermes Mukremin Kilic David Lafrenière Fergal Mullally William Reach Elisa Quintana
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfstarsmetalpollutioninfraredexcessJWSTMIRIimaginggiantplanetscircumstellardisksexoplanetdetectioncool
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 reports the first significant 21-micron excesses detected around white dwarfs with JWST/MIRI: WD 2149+021 shows a 5.1-sigma excess and WD 2105-820 a 5.6-sigma excess above their photospheric emission. The authors try to establish that these excesses are most likely thermal emission from unresolved jovian-mass planets in orbits within 4-8 au, rather than from low-luminosity dust disks. If they are right, giant planets close to their host star are a common driver of white-dwarf metal pollution, and WD 2105-820 would become the first known multi-planet system around a white dwarf, joining an inner planet candidate with a resolved companion at 34 au.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a single measured quantity: a 5-6 sigma excess in the MIRI F2100W filter at 21 microns, with a null or weak excess at 15 microns. That spectral energy distribution shape is compared with three dust-disk models generated with the MCFOST radiative transfer code (a warm disk at the Roche limit, an intermediate disk, and a distant 3-3.3 au belt) and with substellar atmosphere models, while PSF subtraction and kernel-phase imaging rule out resolved companions that would place the flux farther out. The discriminating assumption is the Jura (2008) model that stellar evolution removes small bodies interior to about 3 au, which is what makes the better-fitting intermediate and cold disks implausible.

What would settle it

A 5-13 micron MIRI low-resolution spectrum of either target would settle the question: warm dust near the Roche limit should produce a silicate emission feature and contribute more than 6% of the flux at 10 microns, whereas a 170-280 K planet photosphere is nearly featureless there, and photometry in F1800W or F2500W, or a 3-sigma detection of the 15 micron excess, would test whether the SED follows a planet or a dust blackbody.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the excess flux at 21 microns around two of the four observed polluted white dwarfs is better explained by cool giant planets than by dust. Blackbody fits give emitting areas of roughly 0.25-0.7 Jupiter radii and temperatures below about 330 K, matching planetary radii. The standard warm dust disk at the Roche limit fits only at 2.76-3 sigma, and the intermediate and distant disks that fit better require dust at radii where the red-giant and asymptotic-giant phases should have removed small bodies. Because the excesses are unresolved and must lie within 8 au for WD 2149+021 and 4 au for WD 2105-820, the paper concludes that the most likely explanation is a jovian-mass planet of about 3 Jupiter masses at 203 K for WD 2149+021 and 1.4 Jupiter masses at 171 K for WD 2105-820.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that planets explain the excesses depends on the assumption that no physically plausible dust disk can: the favoured warm-disk model misses the 21-micron point by only 2.8-3 sigma, and the colder disks that fit better are dismissed using a model of how stellar evolution strips small bodies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the two excesses are confirmed as planets, roughly three of the four surveyed white dwarfs host at least one giant planet, an occurrence rate above 55% at 95% confidence under binomial statistics.
  • WD 2105-820 would become the first white-dwarf multi-planet system, with an inner planet inside 4 au and a resolved companion at 34 au, implying dynamical interactions if both candidates are real.
  • The excesses demonstrate that JWST/MIRI can detect faint debris configurations invisible to Spitzer and WISE, and a 5-13 micron MIRI/LRS spectrum can test warm-dust explanations by searching for the silicate feature.
  • If the excesses are instead dust, a large fraction of polluted white dwarfs could have cool infrared excesses even at very low accretion rates, favouring lower-mass perturbers rather than giant planets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the warm-disk model is rejected at only 2.8-3 sigma and only one excess photometric point exists, the planet-versus-dust question will likely remain open until 18 or 25 micron photometry or a 10 micron silicate search is obtained; a planet spectrum peaks near 21 microns while warmer dust declines there.
  • If the close-in planets are confirmed near the inferred separations, their location at or inside the survival radius predicted by red-giant engulfment models would motivate re-examining post-main-sequence tidal evolution and initially eccentric orbits.
  • A volume-limited survey of all metal-polluted white dwarfs within 25 pc could turn the observed 75% candidate rate into a statistically meaningful occurrence measurement and test whether giant planets around white dwarfs are the rule rather than the exception.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents JWST/MIRI Cycle 1 imaging of four nearby metal-polluted white dwarfs in four filters (F560W, F770W, F1500W, F2100W), reports resolved companion searches, and identifies significant 21 micron excesses around WD 2149+021 (5.1 sigma) and WD 2105-820 (5.6 sigma). The excesses are unresolved and are interpreted as candidate jovian-mass planets inside 8 au (WD 2149+021) and 4 au (WD 2105-820), with WD 2105-820 possibly hosting a second, resolved companion at 34 au. The paper argues that planets are the most likely explanation for the excesses, while conceding that no disk model can be entirely ruled out. It also reports the first MIRI F1500W kernel-phase imaging contrast limits for white dwarfs and places mass limits on unresolved companions for all four targets.

Significance. If the planet interpretation holds, this would be the first evidence for close-in giant planets around polluted white dwarfs and would bear directly on the architectures that drive white dwarf pollution. The observational excess detection is well supported: the calibration checks in Section 3.3 use 7-10 independent standards and show observed/model flux ratios of 1.00 plus or minus 0.02 in all four MIRI filters, and the relative flux comparison between similar white dwarfs independently corroborates the excess. The paper also makes a useful methodological contribution by applying kernel-phase imaging with MIRI for the first time. However, the central interpretive claim that planets are 'most likely' rests on a fragile exclusion of dust disk models, and the planet masses are inferred from the same excess used to argue for the planet. These weaknesses, discussed below, make the headline claim more model-dependent than the observationally robust excess detection itself.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2.1, Table 3] The rejection of the warm Roche-limit disk is too fragile to support the abstract's claim that planets are 'most likely.' The inner radius is fixed at the Roche limit (0.0055-0.006 au) rather than fitted, and the 21/15 micron flux ratio is governed primarily by the inner radius and temperature; a slightly more distant warm disk can plausibly satisfy both the F2100W excess and the F1500W upper limit. The quoted discrepancies of 2.76 sigma (WD 2149+021) and just over 3 sigma (WD 2105-820) are not stringent evidence of exclusion, especially given the 2% systematic calibration uncertainty acknowledged in Section 3.3. Since the text itself states that 'no disk model can be entirely ruled out,' the planet preference needs either a quantitative scan over the disk inner radius with propagated uncertainties or a substantially more cautious statement of what the data favor.
  2. [Section 6.2.3, Sections 6.1.2-6.1.3] The dismissal of the intermediate (0.05 au) and distant (3-3.3 au) disks rests on the Jura (2008) removal argument, but this is not a quantitative exclusion. The distant-disk model requires only 10^21-10^23 g of micron-sized dust (Table 3), and Jura (2008) as cited in the text leaves 1-10 km parent bodies that could collisionally replenish that dust after the RGB/AGB phases. No collisional cascade calculation or lifetime estimate is presented. The statement that intermediate and cold disks are 'not well physically motivated' is therefore a plausibility judgment, not a model comparison, and it cannot bear the weight of the 'planets more likely' conclusion.
  3. [Section 6.3, Table 4] The planet masses and effective temperatures are derived by fitting evolutionary atmosphere models to the same 21 micron excess that is used to argue the planet exists; the F1500W photometry is only 1.2-2.0 sigma above the model and does not provide an independent constraint. The quoted masses (3+3/-2 M_Jup and 1.4+0.4/-0.2 M_Jup) are therefore best described as a consistency check under an assumed planet interpretation, not as a characterization that breaks the planet-dust degeneracy. This circularity should be explicitly flagged, and the quoted uncertainties should include the systematic uncertainty in substellar cooling models at T_eff around 170-200 K, which the paper itself notes are 'largely untested' at those temperatures.
  4. [Section 7, Discussion] The occurrence-rate statement '4 detections in 4 trials' is inconsistent with the sample: only three of the four targets show a candidate (WD 2105-820, WD 2149+021, WD 1202-232), and WD 2105-820 has both a resolved candidate and an unresolved excess. Counting these as four independent detections in four trials inflates the binomial confidence behind the '>55% at 95% confidence' giant-planet occurrence estimate. The calculation should be redone with the correct number of independent stars, or explicitly presented as a scenario that assumes both excesses and both resolved candidates are confirmed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Section 2.1] The abstract refers to 'WD 2105-280', but the target is WD 2105-820 throughout the rest of the paper; this appears to be a typo.
  2. [Section 4, Section 6.3, Section 7] The transiting white dwarf companion is referred to inconsistently as 'WD 1858+584b', 'WD 1856+534b', and 'WD 1865+534b'; the same designation from Limbach et al. (2025) should be used everywhere.
  3. [Section 6.2.3] The text refers to 'G29-39' in the sentence about bright dusty white dwarfs, but the comparison source is G29-38 throughout the rest of the paper.
  4. [Section 6.1.3, Table 3] The text states a distant disk would require on the order of 10^25 g of material, while Table 3 lists distant-disk dust masses of 2.5 x 10^23 g and 4 x 10^21 g; since the table is explicitly for the 1-10^4 micron component only, the relationship between the two numbers should be clarified.
  5. [Figure 7 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'tenatative' should be 'tentative.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 21 µm excesses are measured against externally calibrated photospheric models, and the planet-over-dust preference is a stated, model-dependent comparison rather than a derivation from its own conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on externally anchored observations: the F2100W excesses are measured against photospheric models that were checked with independent MIRI calibration standards, yielding observed-to-model flux ratios of 1.00±0.02 in all four filters, and temporal sensitivity-systematics are ruled out using repeated observations of BD+60-1735. The planet interpretation is not assumed in the measurement; it is inferred by fitting blackbody and evolutionary-model SEDs to the same excess, which is standard parameter inference rather than a prediction forced by construction. The dust alternatives are modeled with MCFOST at three fixed inner radii, and the authors explicitly concede that 'no disk model can be entirely ruled out' and that the fits are 'by-eye,' which weakens the planet-vs-dust ranking as a matter of model uncertainty but does not make the ranking equivalent to the input data. The rejection of intermediate and cold dust disks rests on Jura (2008), an external theoretical model, not on a self-citation or an imported uniqueness theorem. Earlier candidate detections from Mullally et al. (2024) and Poulsen et al. (2024) are used as observational context, not as the logical premise for interpreting the new excesses. The admitted caveats—largely untested low-temperature atmosphere models, degenerate by-eye disk fits, and 2.76σ/just-over-3σ disk rejections—are correctness risks, not circular steps. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained: measured excess, then blackbody and evolutionary-model fits, then a quantitative model comparison with dust scenarios, then a stated preference, with no step whose premise equals its conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on a careful photometric calibration (validated by standard stars) but the planet-versus-dust interpretation uses fitted model parameters and a plausibility argument about disk survival. The unresolved planets are not detected directly, so they are inferred entities. The 3-sigma warm-disk rejection and the Jura-model-based dismissal of distant dust are the main model-dependent inputs.

free parameters (8)
  • Photospheric Teff and logg (WD 2149+021) = 17840 K, logg 8.01
    Derived from SED fit to Gaia parallax and photometry; the model photosphere prediction at 21 microns is used to define the excess.
  • Photospheric Teff and logg (WD 2105-820) = 9890 K, logg 8.20 (from Gentile Fusillo et al. 2018)
    Same as above.
  • Planet temperature and mass (WD 2149+021) = 203 plus or minus 16 K, 3+3/-2 MJup
    Fit of Sonora-Bobcat/Helios isochrones to the 21 micron excess flux.
  • Planet temperature and mass (WD 2105-820) = 171 plus or minus 10 K, 1.4+0.4/-0.2 MJup
    Same as above.
  • Warm disk dust mass (both WDs) = 1.5e17 g each
    MCFOST models tuned by-eye to match the 21 micron excess at the Roche limit.
  • Intermediate disk dust mass = 3.4e18 g (WD 2105-820), 2.3e18 g (WD 2149+021)
    MCFOST models at 0.05-0.055 AU, matched by-eye.
  • Distant disk dust mass = 2.5e23 g (WD 2105-820), 4e21 g (WD 2149+021)
    MCFOST models at 3-3.3 AU.
  • Geometric albedo for irradiated planet constraint = 0.3
    Assumed in Equation (1) for equilibrium temperature; affects inferred semi-major axes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption WD atmosphere/cooling models (Bergeron/Bedard) accurately predict photospheric fluxes at 21 microns after scaling to UV spectra.
    Invoked in Sections 3.2-3.3; a model error could create a spurious excess.
  • domain assumption MIRI absolute flux calibration and time-dependent sensitivity correction are accurate to about 2% for F2100W.
    Supported by calibrator measurements in Section 3.3; central to the reality of the excess.
  • domain assumption Substellar evolutionary models (Sonora-Bobcat, Helios) remain valid at T about 170-250 K and ages 1.5-10 Gyr.
    Used to convert excess flux to planet mass; the paper admits these models are 'largely untested at these temperatures' (Section 6.3).
  • domain assumption Material in the 0.05-3 AU region is removed during RGB/AGB evolution (Jura 2008), making intermediate and cold dust disks implausible.
    Used in Section 6.2.3 to argue against dust; if incomplete, planet interpretation weakens.
  • domain assumption RUWE less than 1.4 indicates no astrometric signal from a companion, implying planets interior to about 2 au.
    Cited in Section 6.3 from Limbach et al. 2024; used to tighten separation limits.
invented entities (2)
  • Unresolved giant planet around WD 2149+021
    purpose: Explains 21 micron excess
    Inferred solely from the photometric excess; no resolved detection or independent confirmation.
  • Unresolved giant planet around WD 2105-820
    purpose: Explains 21 micron excess
    Same as above; a separate resolved companion at 34 au was reported in Mullally et al. 2024.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Metal Polluted White Dwarfs with 21 {\mu}m IR excesses from JWST/MIRI: Planets or Dust?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WCW5YM62

@misc{pith2026250621224,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Metal Polluted White Dwarfs with 21 \mum IR excesses from JWST/MIRI: Planets or Dust?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WCW5YM62}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21224}
}
abstract

White dwarfs with metal pollution are caused by the accretion of rocky dust from tidally disrupted minor bodies and are signposts for planetary systems. These minor bodies are perturbed by planets that have survived post-main sequence evolution. Open questions exist as to the typical mass of the perturbers and the specific planetary architectures that cause metal pollution. JWST's sensitivity in the mid-IR has opened new doors to deciphering polluted white dwarfs. We present JWST Cycle 1 MIRI imaging of four nearby metal-polluted white dwarfs with the goal of detecting and characterizing planetary companions. With deep mid-IR imaging we are sensitive to cold Jupiter-mass planet analogs. In addition to finding two candidate planetary companions, for the first time we detect significant excesses above the expected photospheric emission at 21~$\mu$m for two of our targets, WD 2149+021 and WD 2105-820. WD 2105-280 has a candidate planetary companion at a projected separation of 34 au and an infrared excess--if both candidates are confirmed, it would represent the first WD multi-planet system. We investigate whether these excesses could be caused by very low luminosity warm dust disks or planets. While both are likely, we argue that the most likely explanation for the excesses is that they are the thermal emission from jovian-mass planets in orbits with semi-major axes $<$10 au, using a combination of observational constraints. If most of the candidate planets presented here are confirmed, it would suggest that metal polluted white dwarfs are frequently orbited by at least one giant planet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21224 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The four MIRI images of WD 1202-232. Each field represents 22′′×22′′ with the WD at the center. and CRDS version of 11.18.4. Each set of images was processed through stage one (calwebb detector1) and two (calwebb image2) of the imaging pipeline using mostly default parameters. The only non-default values set were in the jump step of the calwebb detector1 pipeline. For that step, we set the rejection threshold to 5 σ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (top panel) Spectral energy distribution of WD 1202-232 and comparison to its predicted photospheric emission. The black line represents the model photosphere for the WD, the red asterisks are the predicted model fluxes in a given filter, and the black squares are arch…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between the average measured flux in a given MIRI imager filter and the expected flux assuming the best-guess models for each calibrator star. Error bars are the calculated rms of each sample of stars, which indicates the systematic uncertainty due to stella…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The ratio of observed flux in F2100W vs. time for calibrators and non-excess WDs (black squares) compared to our excess candidates (blue circles). The calibrator BD+60-1735 was observed starting around MJD 59700 with four epochs, and another two epochs were obtained a…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (left) Detection contrast map with KPI for WD2149+021 in the F1500W filter. Light regions correspond to high contrast sensitivity at 3-σ confidence. The red and pink circles represent the 1 λ/D and 2 λ/D separations. (right) Representative point spread function in the…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (top) Planet sensitivity curve for WD 1202-232. The black curve represents the 5-σ mass sensitivity limit in F1500W for a combination of KPI analysis (<0. ′′5) and with direct imaging with RDI. The flux ratio contrast is converted into mass sensitivity via the calcula…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (top) Planet sensitivity curve for WD 1620-391. The black curve represents the 5-σ mass sensitivity limit in F1500W for a combination of KPI analysis (<0. ′′5) and with direct imaging with RDI. The flux ratio contrast is converted into mass sensitivity via the calcula…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (top) Planet sensitivity curve for WD 2105-820. The black curve represents the 5-σ mass sensitivity limit in F1500W for a combination of KPI analysis (<0. ′′5) and with direct imaging with RDI. The flux ratio contrast is converted into mass sensitivity via the calcula…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: (top) Planet sensitivity curve for WD 2149+021. The black curve represents the 5-σ mass sensitivity limit in F1500W for a combination of KPI analysis (<0. ′′5) and with direct imaging with RDI. The flux ratio contrast is converted into mass sensitivity via the calcula…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: PSF subtracted images of the four WD targets in F1500W. Each panel shows a circular search area of 100 au at the distance of the WD. The orientation of each panel is North up, East left. a) WD 1620-391: Galactic cirrus is present in the background of this image due to…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Three different dust disk models fit to observed excess flux at WD 2149+021 and WD 2105-820 after a WD model is subtracted. Black points represent the observed photometric excesses at F2100W, and arrows represent upper detection limits for F1500W for both targets. The…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 3 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. White dwarfs within 13 pc: Insights from ultraviolet spectroscopy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    UV spectroscopy of the 44 nearest white dwarfs reveals a 2–6% temperature discrepancy between UV and optical model fits, six UV-only metal detections, and a 30% planetary debris accretion rate.

  2. Bounding destruction timescales of minor planets orbiting white dwarfs with the sesquinary catastrophe

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Minor planets orbiting white dwarfs at 1-4 Roche radii can be destroyed by their own returning impact ejecta on timescales of 10^2 to 10^5 years.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Bagnulo, S., & Landstreet, J. D. 2018, A&A, 618, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833235

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833235 2018

  2. [2]

    P., Levens, C

    Ballering, N. P., Levens, C. I., Su, K. Y. L., & Cleeves, L. I. 2022, ApJ, 939, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9a4a B´ edard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9a4a 2022

  3. [3]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

    Bianchi, L., Shiao, B., & Thilker, D. 2017, ApJS, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053 2017

  4. [4]

    2000, Allen’s Astrophysical Quantities, 315, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-1186-0 13

    Binzel, R., Hanner, M., & Steel, D. 2000, Allen’s Astrophysical Quantities, 315, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-1186-0 13

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1186-0 2000

  5. [5]

    C., Gordon, K

    Bohlin, R. C., Gordon, K. D., & Tremblay, P. E. 2014, PASP, 126, 711, doi: 10.1086/677655

    doi:10.1086/677655 2014

  6. [6]

    C., & van Lieshout, R

    Bonsor, A., Farihi, J., Wyatt, M. C., & van Lieshout, R. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx425 24

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx425 2017

  7. [7]

    O., et al

    Bouchet, P., Garc ´ ıa-Mar ´ ın, M., Lagage, P. O., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 612, doi: 10.1086/682254

    doi:10.1086/682254 2015

  8. [8]

    R., Clarke, F

    Burleigh, M. R., Clarke, F. J., & Hodgkin, S. T. 2002, MNRAS, 331, L41, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05417.x

    arXiv 2002

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    2024, The Hubble Advanced Spectral Product (HASP) Program, Instrument Science Report COS 2024-01, 31 pages

    Debes, J., Sankrit, R., Fischer, T., et al. 2024, The Hubble Advanced Spectral Product (HASP) Program, Instrument Science Report COS 2024-01, 31 pages

    2024

  2. [10]

    H., & Sigurdsson, S

    Debes, J. H., & Sigurdsson, S. 2002, ApJ, 572, 556, doi: 10.1086/340291

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    H., Sigurdsson, S., & Hansen, B

    Debes, J. H., Sigurdsson, S., & Hansen, B. 2007, AJ, 134, 1662, doi: 10.1086/521394

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    H., Sigurdsson, S., & Woodgate, B

    Debes, J. H., Sigurdsson, S., & Woodgate, B. E. 2005, AJ, 130, 1221, doi: 10.1086/432660

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Walsh, K

    Debes, J. H., Walsh, K. J., & Stark, C. 2012, ApJ, 747, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/148

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Shivaei, I., et al

    Dicken, D., Mar ´ ın, M. G., Shivaei, I., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449451

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    T., & Lee, H

    Draine, B. T., & Lee, H. M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 89, doi: 10.1086/162480

    1984 doi

  8. [16]

    1992, ApJS, 82, 505, doi: 10.1086/191728

    Dupuis, J., Fontaine, G., Pelletier, C., & Wesemael, F. 1992, ApJS, 82, 505, doi: 10.1086/191728

    1992 doi

  9. [17]

    J., & Greenstein, J

    Eggen, O. J., & Greenstein, J. L. 1965, ApJ, 141, 83, doi: 10.1086/148091

    1965 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Greaves, J

    Farihi, J., Wyatt, M. C., Greaves, J. S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1821, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1545

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    B., Mulders, G

    Fernandes, R. B., Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., Mordasini, C., & Emsenhuber, A. 2019, ApJ, 874, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0300 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P. E., Jordan, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3693, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2584

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G

    Gordon, K. D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G. C., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac66dc

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Sloan, G

    Gordon, K. D., Sloan, G. C., Garcia Marin, M., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8cd4

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    R., & Clarke, F

    Hogan, E., Burleigh, M. R., & Clarke, F. J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 2074, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14565.x

    2009

  15. [23]

    B., & Bergeron, P

    Holberg, J. B., & Bergeron, P. 2006, AJ, 132, 1221, doi: 10.1086/505938

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    B., Bruhweiler, F

    Holberg, J. B., Bruhweiler, F. C., & Andersen, J. 1995, ApJ, 443, 753, doi: 10.1086/175565

    1995 doi

  17. [25]

    M., & Solanki, S

    Jordan, S., Aznar Cuadrado, R., Napiwotzki, R., Schmid, H. M., & Solanki, S. K. 2007, A&A, 462, 1097, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066163

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    2003, ApJL, 584, L91, doi: 10.1086/374036 —

    Jura, M. 2003, ApJL, 584, L91, doi: 10.1086/374036 —. 2008, AJ, 135, 1785, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1785

    2003 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Martinache, F., & Girard, J

    Kammerer, J., Ireland, M. J., Martinache, F., & Girard, J. H. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 639, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz882

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Vandal, T., et al

    Kammerer, J., Cooper, R. A., Vandal, T., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 014502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9a74

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Wickramasinghe, D

    Kawka, A., Vennes, S., Schmidt, G. D., Wickramasinghe, D. T., & Koch, R. 2007, ApJ, 654, 499, doi: 10.1086/509072

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    J., & Bromley, B

    Kenyon, S. J., & Bromley, B. C. 2017, ApJ, 850, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9570

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    1997, MNRAS, 287, 867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/287.4.867

    Chen, A. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/287.4.867

    1997 doi

  24. [32]

    T., & Farihi, J

    Koester, D., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Farihi, J. 2014, A&A, 566, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423691

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    2005, A&A, 432, 1025, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041927

    Koester, D., Rollenhagen, K., Napiwotzki, R., et al. 2005, A&A, 432, 1025, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041927

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    Krishnanth, P. M. S., Douglas, E. S., Anche, R. M., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6efe

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Bagnulo, S., Valyavin, G

    Landstreet, J. D., Bagnulo, S., Valyavin, G. G., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219829

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Vanderburg, A., Stevenson, K

    Limbach, M. A., Vanderburg, A., Stevenson, K. B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2823

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    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

  30. [38]

    A., Vanderburg, A., MacDonald, R

    Limbach, M. A., Vanderburg, A., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc9ad

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    F., Mordasini, C., Molli` ere, P., et al

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

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Luyten, W. J. 1949, ApJ, 109, 528, doi: 10.1086/145156

    1949 doi

  33. [41]

    Ayres, T. R. 2014, ApJ, 787, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/75

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    J., G¨ ansicke, B

    Manser, C. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4467, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2603

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    2021, Sonora Bobcat: cloud-free, substellar atmosphere models, spectra, photometry, evolution, and chemistry [Data set], Sonora Bobcat, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5063476

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

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    C., Barstow, M

    Marsh, M. C., Barstow, M. A., Buckley, D. A., et al. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 705, doi: 10.1093/mnras/287.4.705

    1997 doi

  37. [45]

    2010, ApJ, 724, 464, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/464

    Martinache, F. 2010, ApJ, 724, 464, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/464

    2010 doi

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    2004, A&A, 415, 391, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034250

    Mayor, M., Udry, S., Naef, D., et al. 2004, A&A, 415, 391, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034250

    2004 doi

  40. [48]

    E., Mullally, F., Albert, L., et al

    Mullally, S. E., Mullally, F., Albert, L., et al. 2021, A Search for the Giant Planets that Drive White Dwarf

    2021

  41. [49]

    Cycle 1, ID

    Accretion, JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. #1911

    1911

  42. [50]

    E., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al

    Mullally, S. E., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 962, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2348

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    J., & Villaver, E

    Mustill, A. J., & Villaver, E. 2012, ApJ, 761, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/121 25

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Lisker, T., et al

    Napiwotzki, R., Karl, C. A., Lisker, T., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629648 O’Connor, C. E., Teyssandier, J., & Lai, D. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4178, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1189

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Min, M., et al

    Pinte, C., Harries, T. J., Min, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 498, 967, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811555

    2009 doi

  46. [54]

    2006, A&A, 459, 797, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053275

    Pinte, C., M´ enard, F., Duchˆ ene, G., & Bastien, P. 2006, A&A, 459, 797, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053275

    2006 doi

  47. [55]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/110

    Pope, B., Martinache, F., & Tuthill, P. 2013, ApJ, 767, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/110

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    2024, AJ, 167, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad374c

    Poulsen, S., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad374c

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    T., Lisse, C., von Hippel, T., & Mullally, F

    Reach, W. T., Lisse, C., von Hippel, T., & Mullally, F. 2009, ApJ, 693, 697, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/697

    2009 doi

  50. [58]

    F., et al

    Rodrigo, C., Cruz, P., Aguilar, J. F., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449998

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc262

    Steele, A., Debes, J., Xu, S., Yeh, S., & Dufour, P. 2021, ApJ, 911, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc262

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    B., Sanduleak, N., & Hoffleit, D

    Stephenson, C. B., Sanduleak, N., & Hoffleit, D. 1968, PASP, 80, 92, doi: 10.1086/128591 van Maanen, A. 1919, PASP, 31, 42, doi: 10.1086/122810

    1968 doi

  53. [61]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2141

    Veras, D., Xu, S., & Rebassa-Mansergas, A. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2141

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    2025, ApJL, 982, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbd46

    Voyer, M., Changeat, Q., Lagage, P.-O., et al. 2025, ApJL, 982, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbd46

    2025 doi

  55. [63]

    1978, MNRAS, 182, 111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/182.2.111

    Wegner, G. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/182.2.111

    1978 doi

  56. [64]

    W., Koester, D., et al

    Wolff, B., Kruk, J. W., Koester, D., et al. 2001, A&A, 373, 674, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010612

    2001 doi

  57. [65]

    2014, ApJ, 783, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/79

    Xu, S., Jura, M., Koester, D., Klein, B., & Zuckerman, B. 2014, ApJ, 783, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/79

    2014 doi

  58. [66]

    N., & H¨ unsch, M

    Zuckerman, B., Koester, D., Reid, I. N., & H¨ unsch, M. 2003, ApJ, 596, 477, doi: 10.1086/377492

    2003 doi

  59. [67]

    Zuckerman, B., & Reid, I. N. 1998, ApJL, 505, L143, doi: 10.1086/311608

    1998 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.