Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 149 references

First JWST/MIRI coronagraphic observations of Kappa Andromedae b, combined with uniformly recalibrated near-infrared data, pin its mass at 17.3 ± 1.8 Jupiter masses and its age at 47 ± 7 Myr, placing the long-disputed companion just above t

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

New mid-infrared photometry places kappa Andromedae b at 17.3 Jupiter masses, 47 million years old, with a temperature of 1791 K and radius 1.42 Jupiter radii, just above the deuterium-burning limit.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection First MIRI photometry of κ And b, honestly reduced and carefully homogenized, but the precision gains are overstated because the adopted model fits have chi2_red ≈ 9–20 and the 1% systematic doesn't absorb that overdispersion. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.03624 v1 pith:3O4V4BYO submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.EP

A JWST/MIRI view of k Andromedae b: Refining its mass, age, and physical parameters

N.Godoy , E.Choquet , E. Serabyn , M. Malin , P. Tremblin , C. Danielski , P. O. Lagage , A. Boccaletti
show 2 more authors
B. Charnay M. E. Ressler
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords κ Andromedae bJWST/MIRI coronagraphysubstellar companionbrown dwarfspectral energy distributionatmospheric modelsdeuterium-burning limitdirect imaging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 uses the first JWST/MIRI coronagraphic observations of Kappa Andromedae b — a companion at 50–100 au whose mass has been debated between 13 and 50 Jupiter masses for over a decade — to capture its mid-infrared (10–15 μm) emission and, with it, most of its bolometric flux. Combining the new MIRI photometry with archival near-infrared data uniformly recalibrated against a single stellar model, the authors break the temperature–radius degeneracy that plagued earlier work. They derive a mass of 17.3 ± 1.8 Jupiter masses, an effective temperature of 1791 ± 68 K, a radius of 1.42 ± 0.06 R_Jup, and an age of 47 ± 7 Myr, placing the object just above the deuterium-burning limit. That reading makes Kappa Andromedae b a young brown dwarf rather than a planet, likely a member of the Columba association, and shows what MIRI reveals that NIR-only datasets hide.

Core claim

Fitting the full near-to-mid-infrared spectral energy distribution with cloudy atmosphere models — EXO-REM fitting best — yields T_eff = 1791 ± 68 K, log(g) = 4.35 ± 0.07 dex, a radius of 1.42 ± 0.06 R_Jup, and log L/L_sun = −3.73 ± 0.02. Interpolating these results on evolutionary tracks gives an age of 47 ± 7 Myr and a mass of 17.3 ± 1.8 M_Jup, with three independent methods converging on 17–19 M_Jup. Without the MIRI points, models overestimate temperature and underestimate radius; with them, precision on T_eff, radius, and log(g) improves by 22%, 33%, and 70%. The object sits just above the deuterium-burning limit, and the new age is 75% more precise than previous estimates and consisten

What carries the argument

The load-bearing ensemble is the bolometric spectral energy distribution assembled from three new MIRI coronagraphic photometric points (F1065C, F1140C, F1550C at roughly 10.6, 11.3, and 15.5 μm) plus archival near-infrared spectra and photometry, all recalibrated against a single ATLAS/SYNTHE synthetic stellar spectrum of Kappa And built from the interferometric stellar parameters of Jones et al. (2016). The MIRI points lie on the Rayleigh–Jeans tail of the companion's emission, anchoring the total luminosity and breaking the T_eff–radius degeneracy that NIR-only data cannot resolve. Parameter extraction then proceeds through three coupled steps: MIRI color–magnitude diagrams with methane/a

Load-bearing premise

Every companion flux — the new MIRI points and all recalibrated archival data — is converted from a raw contrast to an absolute flux using a single synthetic stellar spectrum of Kappa And, built from the stellar parameters measured by interferometry in Jones et al. (2016). If that one model's synthetic photometry is systematically off in any band, every data point shifts together and biases the derived temperature, radius, luminosity, and hence mass and age.

What would settle it

A dynamical mass. Kappa Andromedae b's astrometry currently covers less than a decade and shows only linear motion; once orbital curvature or a Gaia proper-motion anomaly is detected, the true mass will either confirm or refute the model-dependent 17.3 ± 1.8 M_Jup. Faster check: a MIRI/MRS 8–11 μm spectrum — the cloudy models that select the adopted mass family predict a silicate absorption feature at these wavelengths, and its absence would undercut the interpretation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • At 17.3 ± 1.8 M_Jup, Kappa Andromedae b sits just above the deuterium-burning limit, so on that criterion it is a brown dwarf rather than a planet, ending a decade of estimates spanning 13–50 M_Jup.
  • The age of 47 ± 7 Myr is about 75% more precise than the previous best and consistent with the Columba association (42 Myr), strengthening the case that the system belongs to that young moving group.
  • The MIRI data specifically are what break the T_eff–radius degeneracy: without them the fits overestimate temperature and underestimate radius, while with them the precision improves roughly 22% on temperature, 33% on radius, and 70% on surface gravity.
  • The position in the MIRI color–magnitude diagram rules out methane and ammonia absorption and is consistent with silicate clouds at T_eff ≈ 1791 K — an interpretation the authors flag as awaiting spectroscopic confirmation.
  • With the age pinned down, the same observations imply sensitivity to additional companions down to roughly 5 M_Jup beyond 4 arcseconds and 8 M_Jup at 40 au in the Kappa And system.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A subtle wavelength-dependent error in the single stellar model used for calibration would shift every data point coherently; redoing the contrast-to-flux conversion with an independent stellar model family would reveal whether the 17.3 M_Jup central value is stable.
  • The silicate-cloud reading is directly testable: a MIRI/MRS spectrum across 8–11 μm should show a silicate absorption feature if the cloudy-model family is right, converting a color-based inference into a direct measurement.
  • The mass is evolutionary-model dependent, so the decisive test will be dynamical: a few more years of astrometry, once orbital curvature or a Gaia proper-motion anomaly is detected, should confirm or refute the ~17 M_Jup estimate and help discriminate hot-start from cold-start formation.
  • The pattern of gains — radius and luminosity improve most, mass scarcely at all — suggests that for young L-type companions MIR photometry is high-leverage for atmospheric parameters, but that evolutionary-model spread, not photometric precision, will be the next bottleneck for masses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents new JWST/MIRI coronagraphic photometry of κ And b in F1065C, F1140C, and F1550C, combined with a homogeneous recalibration of archival near-infrared and low-resolution spectroscopic data using an ATLAS/SYNTHE model of the host star. The assembled SED is analyzed with blackbody fits, ten atmospheric model configurations (cloudy and cloud-free), CMD+isochrone comparisons, and evolutionary tracks. The headline results are Teff = 1791 ± 68 K, R = 1.42 ± 0.06 R_Jup, log(g) = 4.35 ± 0.07 dex, log L/L_sun = −3.73 ± 0.02, a spectroscopic mass of 17.3 ± 1.8 M_Jup, and an age of 47 ± 7 Myr, placing κ And b just above the deuterium-burning limit and consistent with the Columba association. The MIRI detections are at S/N 6–10 and the paper includes careful treatment of cosmic rays, fringing, and bad-pixel bias, plus injection tests and a validation of the CMD method on VHS 1256 b.

Significance. If the quoted uncertainties are reliable, this is a valuable contribution: it provides the first mid-infrared photometry for this benchmark L0–L2 companion, offers a uniformly recalibrated dataset that will be useful to the community, and substantially narrows the mass/age/Teff debate. The data reduction is careful, the limitations are explicitly acknowledged (e.g., "These are all model-dependent estimates", Section 6), and the paper is generally honest about model dependence. The central problem is that the headline precision claims are internally inconsistent with the reported goodness-of-fit: the adopted models have chi2_red of roughly 9–20, which indicates that the data error bars (or the models) are overconfident by a factor of about three. Because the downstream mass and age uncertainties inherit this error calibration, the quantitative claims need revision before the precision improvements can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table 7] The adopted cloudy models have chi2_red = 8.62–20.41, with the two best EXO-REM fits at 8.62 and 10.64. If the input photometric and spectral error bars are correct, these chi2_red values imply residual scatter about three times larger than the quoted error bars. The formal parameter uncertainties are therefore underestimated by roughly sqrt(chi2_red) ~ 3 for the best-fitting models. The 1% systematic added in Section 4.3 does not absorb this: 1% of Teff ≈ 18 K is comparable to the EXO-REM fit error of ~20 K, while absorbing the overdispersion would require errors about three times larger. Since the weighted-mean combinations in Table 7 use these variances, the quoted Teff = 1791 ± 69 K, log(g) = 4.35 ± 0.07, mass = 17.3 ± 1.8 M_Jup, and the evolutionary-track age of 47 ± 7 Myr are likely too precise by a factor of 2–3. I recommend rescaling the data uncertainties so that chi2_red ≈ 1 fo
  2. [Sections 4.3–4.4, Table 7] The final estimates are based on the cloudy family, selected by fit quality, after applying Gaussian priors informed by a blackbody fit to the same dataset (T_eff ~ N(1750, 350) K, log(g) ~ N(4.5, 0.25), R ~ N(1.4, 0.15) R_Jup) and hard constraints (log(g) > 3.9, R > 1.0 R_Jup, T_eff > 1650 K). This selection and prior dependence is not reflected in the quoted uncertainties. The spread among cloudy models is substantial: T_eff ranges from 1694 to 1938 K, log(g) from 4.29 to 4.51, and radius from 1.31 to 1.47 R_Jup. The cloud-free family gives log(g) = 4.24 ± 0.14 and mass = 15.0 ± 3.2 M_Jup, which are consistent at roughly 1–2 sigma but not captured by the adopted error bars. I recommend quoting a model-family systematic term (e.g., the envelope of cloudy + cloud-free results) or presenting the combined-family result as the headline precision. The statement in Section 6 that the results
  3. [Sections 3.3–3.4] All companion fluxes, including the new MIRI measurements and the recalibrated archival data, are converted from measured contrasts using a single ATLAS/SYNTHE model of κ And. The model is validated against archival stellar photometry and the stellar-parameter uncertainties are propagated through 1000 Monte Carlo realizations, but this does not capture systematic errors in the stellar model itself (e.g., treatment of rotation/obliquity, line lists, or metallicity). A systematic offset in the stellar model would shift every companion photometric point coherently, directly biasing T_eff, radius, luminosity, mass, and age. Since this is the load-bearing external input, I ask for a sensitivity test using at least one independent stellar model (for example, the Castelli & Kurucz model used by Currie et al. 2018) and a statement of how the final parameters change.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract and conclusion quote log L/L_sun = −3.73 ± 0.02, while Table 7 and Table 9 give the cloudy-family value as −3.71 ± 0.07. Please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract states the precision improves by "~30%" for both T_eff and radius; Section 6 reports a 22% improvement in T_eff and 33% in radius. Make the numbers consistent.
  3. [Table 9] In the note for Uyama et al. (2020), "±25 dex" should read "±0.25 dex."
  4. [Figure 15 caption] The bottom caption says "DUSTY-Linder2009" while the text and Section 4.6 refer to "Linder2019" (BEX models). Please unify the notation.
  5. [Abstract and Section 4.3] Minor wording: "weight-mean combining" and "weight-mean combined" are awkward; use "weighted-mean combination" throughout.
  6. [Appendix F] The text quotes an age(mass) of 176 ± 59 Myr for Sonora-solar, while Figure F.3 gives 183 ± 60 Myr. Please check and reconcile.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No formal circularity: the reported parameters come from fits to independent (recalibrated) data and theoretical evolutionary tracks; self-citations are methodological and not load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain: MIRI photometry is reduced with standard pipelines (spaceKLIP) and calibrated with an ATLAS stellar model built from Jones et al. (2016) stellar parameters; this is an external input, not a fitted companion quantity. Archival companion fluxes are reprocessed against the same stellar model, but the model itself is validated against archival stellar photometry and is not derived from the companion data. The atmospheric parameters (Teff, log g, radius) are obtained by fitting several independent atmospheric models to the full SED. The Gaussian priors are informed by a blackbody fit to the same photometry, which is a mild data double-counting concern, but the priors are broad (e.g., Teff sigma = 350 K) and the fits also use IFS spectra with their own likelihood; the final values are not algebraically forced to equal the blackbody values. The age and mass are then derived from theoretical evolutionary tracks (ATMO, Saumon, Sonora, etc.) using the fitted Teff/log(g)/radius; they do not take the adopted stellar age as an input, and the resulting age (47±7 Myr) is independently consistent with Jones et al. (2016) rather than being that value inserted into the derivation. The CMD+isochrone method is validated on the external benchmark VHS 1256 b against literature values. Self-citations (Godoy et al. 2024, Mâlin et al. 2024) concern data-reduction methodology and comparison samples, not a uniqueness theorem or a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The high chi2_red values reported in Table 7 indicate possible underestimation of error bars, but that is an uncertainty-calibration issue, not circularity. Overall, no step reduces by construction to its own input, so the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the adopted stellar parameters from Jones et al. (2016), the ATLAS stellar model for flux calibration, and the theoretical atmosphere and evolutionary models used for fitting. The priors and physical constraints are ad hoc steering choices; the 1% systematic is an added fudge. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Gaussian priors on T_eff, log(g), radius = N(1750,350) K, N(4.5,0.25) dex, N(1.4,0.15) R_Jup
    Used in atmospheric fits, informed by the blackbody fit of the same data and by literature, which mildly steers solutions toward the final values.
  • Ad hoc 1% systematic uncertainty = 1%
    Added to all parameters to account for modeling biases (Section 4.3); no derivation, inflates quoted precision but keeps error bars from being formally underestimated.
  • Physical constraints log(g)>3.9, radius>1.0 R_Jup, T_eff>1650 K = thresholds
    Post hoc restrictions based on L0/L2 spectral type priors; exclude a priori some cloud-free solutions that fit poorly and that would yield lower T_eff.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The ATLAS/SYNTHE stellar model accurately represents the B9IV star kappa And for flux calibration.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 to convert all contrast measurements into absolute fluxes; a systematic error would shift every derived companion parameter.
  • domain assumption Theoretical evolutionary tracks (ATMO, AMES, BT-Settl, Sonora, Saumon) correctly map T_eff, radius, log(g) to mass and age.
    Used in Section 4.4 to derive mass and age from atmospheric fit results; model spread is acknowledged but the final values come from the best-fitting family.
  • domain assumption Gaia parallax and Jones et al. (2016) stellar parameters are adopted without re-derivation.
    Stellar mass, radius, T_eff, log(g), and age from Table 1 are inputs to the stellar model and to the interpretation of the companion.
  • ad hoc to paper The cloudy model family is the correct physical description for kappa And b.
    Cloudy models fit the SED best, and the final mass/age (17.3±1.8 M_Jup, 47±7 Myr) are adopted only from that family (Section 4.4, Table 8); the cloud-free family gives 15-16 M_Jup.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A JWST/MIRI view of k Andromedae b: Refining its mass, age, and physical parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3O4V4BYO

@misc{pith2026250903624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A JWST/MIRI view of k Andromedae b: Refining its mass, age, and physical parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3O4V4BYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03624}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Context. kAndb is a substellar companion near the planet-brown dwarf boundary, orbiting a B9IV star at 50-100 au. Estimates of its age and mass vary, fueling a decade-long debate. Atmospheric parameters (Teff 1650-2050 K, log(g) 3.5-5.5) remain poorly constrained due to model differences and heterogeneous datasets. Aims. We refine the characterization of kAndb using mid-infrared data to capture its bolometric emission. Combined with NIR measurements, we constrain Teff, log(g), and radius to reduce uncertainties in age and mass. Methods. We obtained JWST/MIRI coronagraphic data (F1065C, F1140C, F1550C) and recalibrated NIR photometry with an updated ATLAS stellar model. MIRI color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) probe the likelihood of species (CH4, NH3, silicates). We compared H and F1140C colors and magnitudes to isochrones to constrain age and mass. We modeled the spectral energy distribution with atmosphere models to refine Teff, radius, and log(g), and to constrain age and mass using evolutionary models. Results. Cloudy atmosphere models fit best, consistent with the L0/L2 spectral type and position near silicate-atmosphere field objects in the MIRI CMD. We derived an age of 47+-7 Myr and mass of 17.3+-1.8 MJup by weighted-mean model combination. Modeling yielded Teff = 1791+-68 K and radius = 1.42+-0.06 RJup, improving precision by 30%. Log(g) = 4.35+-0.07 dex represents a 70% improvement over the previous best value (4.75+-0.25). Conclusions. The new mass places kAndb just above the deuterium-burning limit. The age is 75% more precise and consistent with the Columba association (42 Myr). The Teff suggests silicate clouds, requiring spectroscopic confirmation. MIRI data were crucial to refining radius and temperature, which led to stronger constraints on age and mass and improving the overall characterization of kAndb.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03624 by A. Boccaletti, B. Charnay, C. Danielski, E.Choquet, E. Serabyn, M. E. Ressler, M. Malin, N.Godoy, P. O. Lagage, P. Tremblin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: CMD showing the position of κ And b (red hexagon marker) rel￾ative to the population of low-mass stars and brown dwarfs (colored cir￾cles) as obtained from Best et al. (2021). The different colors highlight the different spectral types. The gray pentagons correspond to selected directly imaged planets (DIP) and planetary-mass companions (PMCs). 3. Observations and data reduction 3.1. Observations and strat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Second integration of the third dither position of the refer￾ence star HD 222389 after the background subtraction at the F1550C filter. Left: Frame with the standard data reduction parameters using spaceKLIP. Right: Same frame, but directly applying our cosmic-ray and bad-pixel corrections in the raw frame. acterized by horizontal lines, which significantly impacts the post-processing stage (see Fig. B.1).… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: SED of the star κ Andromedae. The orange dots correspond to the photometric data from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pre- and post-processing frames of κ And. Top: Background-subtracted and stacked science frames. The stacking is only for visualization purposes. Bottom: Starlight-subtracted image using RDI and KLIP at the optimal number of components. From left to right: F1065C, F1140C, and F1550C filters. The horizontal white arrow highlights the position of κ And b. Each of the columns (i.e., filters) has the same colo… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Smoothed contrast limits for all JWST/MIRI κ And observations in the F1065C (blue), F1140C (green), and F1550C (red) bandpasses. κ And b and derived the magnitudes in each filter using our stellar spectrum model. The resulting magnitudes are con￾sistent with those from Bonnefoy et al. (2014), with about 0.01 mag differences. We did not re-estimate the L ′ magni￾tude, as it was flux-calibrated using HR 8799… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SED of κ And b. The colored circles correspond to the IFS/spectrum data, while the colored pentagons are the photometric data. Note that we reduced the OSIRIS resolution spectrum to a low￾resolution, IFS-like data (hereafter “OSIRIS-IFS”). 4.1. MIRI color-magnitude diagram Color-magnitude diagrams have long been essential for study￾ing the atmospheric and physical properties of substellar objects across th… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: CMD using the F1065C ad F1140C filters from MIRI. The dots correspond to the photometry obtained from the Spitzer spectra sample (Suárez & Metchev 2022), while the colors refer to the spectral type. The subplots correspond to the same CMD but show the methane (left), ammonia (middle), and silicates (right) spectral indices, as defined in Suárez & Metchev (2022), related to the depth of the absorption featu… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: CMD using H2MASS and F1140C. The blue pentagon corresponds to κ And b, while the red one to VHS 1256 b (from Miles et al. 2023 and Godoy et al. 2024). The colored circles correspond to field sources shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: SED of κ And b and the blackbody fitting results. The red circles correspond to observed photometry and calculated photometry from spectra observations (synthetic photometry). The colored lines corre￾spond to the black body fit with temperatures from 1200 K to 2400 K (fixed) and the respective best-fit radius. The color gradient corresponds to the goodness-of-fit. The dashed black line corresponds to the … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Best-fit results from different atmospheric models. Each panel shows the best-fit model from a different combination of datasets, selected from all possible combinations. Each panel shows the photometric data (yellow pentagons), IFS (cyan circles), photometry from atmospheric model (magenta squares), and the best-fit model (colored line), and the residuals are shown in the bottom panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evolutionary tracks showing the age (continuum gray lines) and the mass (dashed dark gray lines) for a cloudy (Sonora with solar metallicity, right panels), and a cloud-free model (ATMO chemical equilibrium, left panels). Top: Evolutionary tracks using the radius and effective temperature. Bottom: Evolutionary tracks using effective temperature and log(g). The differently colored pentagons correspond to t… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Ages and masses estimated from literature and this work. Left: Age estimates from the literature (black triangles), CMD plus isochrones (red pentagons), and evolutionary tracks plus atmospheric models (green squares). Right: Mass estimates from the literature (black triangles), CMD plus isochrones (red pentagons), spectroscopic masses (purple diamond), and evolutionary tracks plus atmospheric models (gree… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Mass (from a 5σ sensitivity contrast) as a function of angular separation. Top: ATMO chemical equilibrium mass limits for F1065C, F1140C, and F1550C. Bottom: Same as in the left panel but for DUSTY￾Linder2009. 5. Discussion 5.1. Physical parameters of κ And b The large uncertainties in the age, the wide range of possible temperatures, and the model dependence in the derived mass, at the top of a nonunifor… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Sensitivity of JWST/MIRI observations using the ATMO chemical equilibrium evolutionary track and an age of 47 ± 7 Myr. From left to right: F1065C, F1140C, and F1550C. The color bar in each plot means the detection probability, and the solid lines highlight the 10%, 50%, and 90% detection thresholds. The dotted and dashed lines correspond to 1σ uncertainties, respectively. 20 50 100 200 500 1000 Semi major… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as figure 16 but using the DUSTY-Linder2009 evolutionary tracks. nefoy et al. 2014; Stone et al. 2020). Also, a well-constrained age enables better comparisons with other planetary-mass companions (e.g., those near to κ And b in the CMD; Figures 1 and 9), and more precise evolutionary history track, making κ And b a valuable benchmark for future atmospheric studies. Mass estimates : The companion’s m… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1200, The HIPPARCOS and TYCHO catalogues

    1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol. 1200, The HIPPARCOS and TYCHO catalogues. Astrometric and photometric star catalogues derived from the ESA HIPPARCOS Space Astrometry Mission

    1997

  2. [2]

    H., Alexander , D

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

    2001

  3. [3]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765

    Allard , F., Homeier , D., & Freytag , B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765

    2012

  4. [4]

    Allers , K. N. & Liu , M. C. 2013, , 772, 79

    2013

  5. [5]

    Anderson , R. E. & Gordon , K. D. 2011, , 123, 1237

    2011

  6. [6]

    2015, , 806, 254

    Artigau , \'E ., Gagn \'e , J., Faherty , J., et al. 2015, , 806, 254

    2015

  7. [7]

    A., Neugebauer , G., Habing , H

    Beichman , C. A., Neugebauer , G., Habing , H. J., Clegg , P. E., & Chester , T. J., eds. 1988, Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) Catalogs and Atlases.Volume 1: Explanatory Supplement. , Vol. 1

    1988

  8. [8]

    Bell , C. P. M., Mamajek , E. E., & Naylor , T. 2015, , 454, 593

    2015

  9. [9]

    Best, W. M. J., Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., Siverd, R. J., & Zhang, Z. 2021, The UltracoolSheet: Photometry, Astrometry, Spectroscopy, and Multiplicity for 3000+ Ultracool Dwarfs and Imaged Exoplanets

    2021

  10. [10]

    2022, , 667, A165

    Boccaletti , A., Cossou , C., Baudoz , P., et al. 2022, , 667, A165

    2022

  11. [11]

    O., Baudoz , P., et al

    Boccaletti , A., Lagage , P. O., Baudoz , P., et al. 2015, , 127, 633

    2015

  12. [12]

    2024, , 686, A33

    Boccaletti , A., M \^a lin , M., Baudoz , P., et al. 2024, , 686, A33

    2024

  13. [13]

    2019, , 483, 2758

    Bonatto , C. 2019, , 483, 2758

    2019

  14. [14]

    2020, Exo-DMC: Exoplanet Detection Map Calculator , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2010.008

    Bonavita , M. 2020, Exo-DMC: Exoplanet Detection Map Calculator , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2010.008

    2020

  15. [15]

    M., et al

    Bonnefoy , M., Boccaletti , A., Lagrange , A. M., et al. 2013, , 555, A107

    2013

  16. [16]

    D., et al

    Bonnefoy , M., Currie , T., Marleau , G. D., et al. 2014, , 562, A111

    2014

  17. [17]

    Bowler , B. P. 2016, , 128, 102001

    2016

  18. [18]

    M., Brandt , T

    Brandt , G. M., Brandt , T. D., Dupuy , T. J., Li , Y., & Michalik , D. 2021, , 161, 179

    2021

  19. [19]

    D., Dupuy , T

    Brandt , T. D., Dupuy , T. J., & Bowler , B. P. 2019, , 158, 140

    2019

  20. [20]

    Burgasser , A. J. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 450, Molecules in the Atmospheres of Extrasolar Planets, ed. J. P. Beaulieu , S. Dieters , & G. Tinetti , 113

    2011

  21. [21]

    J., Kirkpatrick , J

    Burgasser , A. J., Kirkpatrick , J. D., Brown , M. E., et al. 2002, , 564, 421

    2002

  22. [22]

    Burggraaff , O., Talens , G. J. J., Spronck , J., et al. 2018, , 617, A32

    2018

  23. [23]

    2006, , 640, 1063

    Burrows , A., Sudarsky , D., & Hubeny , I. 2006, , 640, 1063

    2006

  24. [24]

    J., Krist , J

    Burrows , C. J., Krist , J. E., Stapelfeldt , K. R., & WFPC2 Investigation Definition Team . 1995, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 187, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 32.05

    1995

  25. [25]

    2022, spacetelescope/jwst: JWST 1.6.2 , Zenodo

    Bushouse , H., Eisenhamer , J., Dencheva , N., et al. 2022, spacetelescope/jwst: JWST 1.6.2 , Zenodo

    2022

  26. [26]

    Cannon , A. J. & Pickering , E. C. 1993, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Henry Draper Catalogue and Extension (Cannon+ 1918-1924; ADC 1989) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: III/135A. Originally published in: Harv. Ann. 91-100 (1918-1924)

    1993

  27. [27]

    2013, , 763, L32

    Carson , J., Thalmann , C., Janson , M., et al. 2013, , 763, L32

    2013

  28. [28]

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

    Carter , A. L., Hinkley , S., Kammerer , J., et al. 2023, , 951, L20

    2023

  29. [29]

    & Kurucz , R

    Castelli , F. & Kurucz , R. L. 2003, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 210, Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov , W. W. Weiss , & D. F. Gray , A20

    2003

  30. [30]

    2000, , 542, 464

    Chabrier , G., Baraffe , I., Allard , F., & Hauschildt , P. 2000, , 542, 464

    2000

  31. [31]

    L., et al

    Charnay , B., B \'e zard , B., Baudino , J. L., et al. 2018, , 854, 172

    2018

  32. [32]

    M., et al

    Chauvin , G., Desidera , S., Lagrange , A. M., et al. 2017, , 605, L9

    2017

  33. [33]

    M., Zuckerman , B., et al

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

    2005

  34. [34]

    C., Samland , M., Brems , S

    Cheetham , A. C., Samland , M., Brems , S. S., et al. 2019, , 622, A80

    2019

  35. [35]

    P., Sarcia , D., Grabau , A., et al

    Clemens , D. P., Sarcia , D., Grabau , A., et al. 2007, , 119, 1385

    2007

  36. [36]

    2023, , 946, 6

    Couture , D., Gagn \'e , J., & Doyon , R. 2023, , 946, 6

    2023

  37. [37]

    M., Brandt , T

    Currie , T., Brandt , G. M., Brandt , T. D., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 198

    2023

  38. [38]

    D., Uyama , T., et al

    Currie , T., Brandt , T. D., Uyama , T., et al. 2018, , 156, 291

    2018

  39. [39]

    2011, , 729, 128

    Currie , T., Burrows , A., Itoh , Y., et al. 2011, , 729, 128

    2011

  40. [40]

    C., Marley , M

    Cushing , M. C., Marley , M. S., Saumon , D., et al. 2008, , 678, 1372

    2008

  41. [41]

    C., Rayner , J

    Cushing , M. C., Rayner , J. T., & Vacca , W. D. 2005, , 623, 1115

    2005

  42. [42]

    C., Roellig , T

    Cushing , M. C., Roellig , T. L., Marley , M. S., et al. 2006, , 648, 614

    2006

  43. [43]

    2017, , 601, A65

    Daemgen , S., Todorov , K., Silva , J., et al. 2017, , 601, A65

    2017

  44. [44]

    2018, , 156, 276

    Danielski , C., Baudino , J.-L., Lagage , P.-O., et al. 2018, , 156, 276

    2018

  45. [45]

    J., Rameau , J., Patience , J., et al

    De Rosa , R. J., Rameau , J., Patience , J., et al. 2016, , 824, 121

    2016

  46. [46]

    Ducati , J. R. 2002, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Catalogue of Stellar Photometry in Johnson's 11-color system. , CDS/ADC Collection of Electronic Catalogues, 2237, 0 (2002)

    2002

  47. [47]

    J., Liu , M

    Dupuy , T. J., Liu , M. C., Evans , E. L., et al. 2023, , 519, 1688

    2023

  48. [48]

    J., Marley , M

    Fortney , J. J., Marley , M. S., Saumon , D., & Lodders , K. 2008, , 683, 1104

    2008

  49. [49]

    & Bowler , B

    Franson , K. & Bowler , B. P. 2023, , 165, 246

    2023

  50. [50]

    P., Brandt , T

    Franson , K., Bowler , B. P., Brandt , T. D., et al. 2022, , 163, 50

    2022

  51. [51]

    2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350

    Gaia Collaboration . 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350

    2020

  52. [52]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  53. [53]

    Garrison , R. F. & Gray , R. O. 1994, , 107, 1556

    1994

  54. [54]

    2024, , 689, A185

    Godoy , N., Choquet , E., Serabyn , E., et al. 2024, , 689, A185

    2024

  55. [55]

    2024, , 684, A69

    Gratton , R., Bonavita , M., Mesa , D., et al. 2024, , 684, A69

    2024

  56. [56]

    D., Kasdin , N

    Groff , T. D., Kasdin , N. J., Limbach , M. A., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay , I. S. McLean , & H. Takami , 91471W

    2014

  57. [57]

    D., Kasdin , N

    Groff , T. D., Kasdin , N. J., Limbach , M. A., et al. 2015, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9605, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets VII, ed. S. Shaklan , 96051C

    2015

  58. [58]

    H., Allard , F., Ferguson , J., Baron , E., & Alexander , D

    Hauschildt , P. H., Allard , F., Ferguson , J., Baron , E., & Alexander , D. R. 1999, , 525, 871

    1999

  59. [59]

    Helling , C., Dehn , M., Woitke , P., & Hauschildt , P. H. 2008, , 675, L105

    2008

  60. [60]

    & Walker , D

    Helou , G. & Walker , D. W., eds. 1988, Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) Catalogs and Atlases.Volume 7: The Small Scale Structure Catalog. , Vol. 7

    1988

  61. [61]

    R., Brenner , D., et al

    Hinkley , S., Oppenheimer , B. R., Brenner , D., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7015, Adaptive Optics Systems, ed. N. Hubin , C. E. Max , & P. L. Wizinowich , 701519

    2008

  62. [62]

    R., Zimmerman , N., et al

    Hinkley , S., Oppenheimer , B. R., Zimmerman , N., et al. 2011, , 123, 74

    2011

  63. [63]

    K., et al

    Hinkley , S., Pueyo , L., Faherty , J. K., et al. 2013, , 779, 153

    2013

  64. [64]

    W., Suzuki , R., Tamura , M., et al

    Hodapp , K. W., Suzuki , R., Tamura , M., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali , 701419

    2008

  65. [65]

    V., et al

    H g , E., Fabricius , C., Makarov , V. V., et al. 2000, , 357, 367

    2000

  66. [66]

    2010, , 514, A1

    Ishihara , D., Onaka , T., Kataza , H., et al. 2010, , 514, A1

    2010

  67. [67]

    J., Quinn , S., et al

    Jones , J., White , R. J., Quinn , S., et al. 2016, , 822, L3

    2016

  68. [68]

    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 , 121803N

    2022

  69. [69]

    J., et al

    Karalidi , T., Marley , M., Fortney , J. J., et al. 2021, , 923, 269

    2021

  70. [70]

    Kirkpatrick , J. D. 2005, , 43, 195

    work page 2005

  71. [71]

    D., Reid , I

    Kirkpatrick , J. D., Reid , I. N., Liebert , J., et al. 1999, , 519, 802

    work page 1999

  72. [72]

    2018, , 130, 035001

    K \"u hn , J., Serabyn , E., Lozi , J., et al. 2018, , 130, 035001

    work page 2018

  73. [73]

    Kurucz , R. L. 2013, ATLAS12: Opacity sampling model atmosphere program , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.024

    work page 2013

  74. [74]

    Kurucz , R. L. 2014, in Determination of Atmospheric Parameters of B, ed. E. Niemczura , B. Smalley , & W. Pych , 39--51

    work page 2014

  75. [75]

    M., Bonnefoy , M., Chauvin , G., et al

    Lagrange , A. M., Bonnefoy , M., Chauvin , G., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 57

    work page 2010

  76. [76]

    M., Gratadour , D., Chauvin , G., et al

    Lagrange , A. M., Gratadour , D., Chauvin , G., et al. 2009, , 493, L21

    work page 2009

  77. [77]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Lajoie , C.-P., Soummer , R., Pueyo , L., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9904, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. H. A. MacEwen , G. G. Fazio , M. Lystrup , N. Batalha , N. Siegler , & E. C. Tong , 99045K

    work page 2016

  78. [78]

    2006, , 50, 362

    Larkin , J., Barczys , M., Krabbe , A., et al. 2006, , 50, 362

    work page 2006

  79. [79]

    2023, , 674, A15

    Lebzelter , T., Mowlavi , N., Lecoeur-Taibi , I., et al. 2023, , 674, A15

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    K., Burningham , B., Saumon , D., et al

    Leggett , S. K., Burningham , B., Saumon , D., et al. 2010, , 710, 1627

    work page 2010

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.