Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Proxima b's published orbit cannot guide direct imaging

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 23:10 UTC pith:CE6UOI5E

load-bearing objection Useful planning tool, and the qualitative verdict on Prox Cen b is right, but the headline percentages rest on an independent-Gaussian assumption that is shaky for low-e RV orbits. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06747 v1 pith:CE6UOI5E submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Direct Detection of Known Exoplanets in Reflected Light: Predicting Sky Position with Literature Orbit Solutions

Logan A. Pearce , Jared R. Males , Mary Anne Limbach This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords exoplanet direct imagingreflected lightorbital predictionProxima Centauri bGJ 876 bMonte Carlo orbit simulationobserving campaign planningcoronagraphy
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.

This paper develops projecc, an open-source Monte Carlo tool that turns published exoplanet orbit solutions into sky-plane position predictions for direct imaging, and applies it to two showcase targets. The central finding is that the current published orbit for Proxima Centauri b is not precise enough to cue a reflected-light imaging campaign: at the predicted time of maximum elongation, 7% of simulated orbits place the planet within 4 lambda/D of the star for a next-generation 39 m telescope, 34% put it at viewing phases where the reflected-light contrast is at least halved, and 11% put it at phases more than an order of magnitude fainter than quadrature. Because the predicted location and phase are so uncertain, a non-detection would be ambiguous. In contrast, the GJ 876 b system has three independent literature solutions that intersect, giving a well-constrained prediction and making it a strong first target. The paper concludes that refining the periastron time T0 and argument of periastron omega_p for Proxima Centauri b is the top priority for enabling its direct detection.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that literature orbit solutions for Proxima Centauri b, including the most recent ESPRESSO-based fits, do not constrain the planet's sky position at the epoch where reflected-light detection is easiest. At the predicted maximum-elongation date, projecc's simulations from the published parameters produce a scattered cloud: 7% of realizations fall inside 4 lambda/D for an ELT-sized primary, 25% inside 4 lambda/D for a GMT-sized primary, 19% inside 1 lambda/D for a 6.5 m-class telescope, 34% at phase angles above 110 degrees where contrast drops by at least a factor of two, and 11% at phases where contrast is more than an order of magnitude below quadrature. A non-d

What carries the argument

The central object is projecc, a Monte Carlo orbit-propagation package. It draws each orbital parameter from a Gaussian distribution defined by the reported literature value and error, solves Kepler's equation, rotates the orbit plane into the sky plane, and computes the scattering phase angle from inclination and true anomaly using the standard Lambert-phase parametrization. It converts a published orbit solution with error bars into a posterior cloud of on-sky positions and phases at a chosen date, then quantifies that cloud with contour regions and aperture fractions: the share of realizations falling within a given lambda/D of the predicted location.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative percentages rest on treating every published orbital parameter as an independent Gaussian variable with the reported error bars; if the real orbit-fit posteriors are skewed, correlated, or multi-modal, the exact numbers change.

What would settle it

Re-fit the Proxima Centauri b radial-velocity data with a sampler that accounts for parameter covariances and non-Gaussian posteriors, then propagate the resulting full posterior to the predicted max-elongation date. If the sky-position distribution then has, say, 90% of realizations inside 1 lambda/D of the nominal location instead of the paper's 7%-inside-4-lambda/D result, the paper's central quantitative claim would be refuted and the uncertainty would be an artifact of the Gaussian assumption rather than a property of the data.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Reflected-light campaigns for Proxima Centauri b should not be scheduled from current published orbits alone; a non-detection would be scientifically ambiguous.
  • Refining omega_p and T0 is the bottleneck for cued observations; for a 50% chance of catching Proxima Centauri b within 1 lambda/D, the required uncertainties are roughly 15-20 hours on T0 and 15-25 degrees on omega_p depending on telescope aperture.
  • GJ 876 b, with its three intersecting orbit solutions, is a practical early reflected-light target for next-generation ground-based coronagraphs.
  • Survey planning for space coronagraphs and extreme-adaptive-optics ground instruments can use projecc-style aperture fractions to prioritize targets and to place dark-hole regions where the planet is most likely to fall.
  • Publications of orbit fits should release full posterior distributions rather than summary values, because location predictions depend sensitively on the shape and correlations of parameter uncertainties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the Gaussian-and-independent assumption probably understates the true uncertainty for many RV-only planets, so target rankings built from literature summaries should be read as optimistic; full posteriors could reorder them.
  • Editorial inference: the same omega_p/T0 sensitivity will apply to other short-period habitable-zone planets, only more severely because their angular separations are smaller, so orbit-refinement efforts should be shared across the target list rather than focused on Proxima Centauri b alone.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's aperture-fraction statistic (share of orbit realizations inside 1 lambda/D) could serve as a community standard for calling a target cueable, and the thresholds derived for Proxima Centauri b are directly testable on other systems with the same tool.
  • Editorial inference: if the claim is right, the cost of unrefined orbits is not only wasted telescope time but a biased survey yield: a survey will preferentially catch planets whose orbits happen to be favorably aligned, skewing any demographic conclusions drawn from detections.

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. The paper presents projecc, an open-source Python package that propagates literature orbital solutions with uncertainties into sky-plane position and phase-angle distributions for planning reflected-light direct imaging campaigns. It defines a clear coordinate convention, samples orbital parameters by Monte Carlo, and provides a web application and target list. The two case studies are GJ 876 b, where three independent solutions (RV, RV+astrometry, and Gaia NSS) are consistent enough to give a usefully concentrated prediction, and Proxima Centauri b, where the simulations produce a broad sky-position cloud at the predicted maximum-elongation time: the paper quotes a 7% chance of being within 4 lambda/D for an ELT-sized aperture, 34% of realizations at phase angles where the reflected-light contrast is at least a factor of two lower than at quadrature, and 11% at more than an order of magnitude lower contrast. The paper concludes that current published orbits of Proxima b cannot efficiently cue reflected-light imaging and that reducing the uncertainties in the epoch of periastron passage T0 and argument of periastron omega_p is the key enabling step.

Significance. If the qualitative conclusion holds, this is an actionable result for ELT, Roman-CGI, and HWO planning and for prioritizing RV follow-up of high-value targets. The software release, reproducible Monte Carlo propagation, and the interactive target list are genuine community assets; the GJ 876 b comparison usefully demonstrates that convergence of independent orbit solutions can yield a concentrated prediction. However, the quantitative Proxima b results rest on an independence/Gaussian approximation that the authors themselves flag in Sections 2.4 and 4.1. The specific percentages and the Figure 6 precision thresholds should therefore be viewed as conditional on that approximation, and the paper needs to address this before the numbers can be used for survey planning.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 3, Section 2.2] The headline Proxima b percentages (7%, 34%, 11%) and the cloud in Figure 4 are generated by drawing T0 and omega_p as independent Gaussians. For the nearly circular orbit of Proxima b (e ~ 0.1), radial-velocity data constrain the mean longitude lambda = 2*pi*(t - T0)/P + omega_p (through M + omega_p) much better than T0 and omega_p individually. The published marginal uncertainties, sigma_omega ~ 42 deg and sigma_T0 ~ 1.3 d (about 42 deg of orbital phase), are likely a strongly degenerate pair. Treating them as independent roughly doubles the effective phase uncertainty. Since the phase angle and sky position at a fixed date are controlled by lambda, the cloud and all derived probabilities could shrink substantially if the true (T0, omega_p) posterior is a narrow ridge. This is not a calibration nuance; it is the statistical basis for the central claim that Proxima b's location is highl
  2. [Section 3.2, Figures 4-6, Section 4.2] The treatment of inclination in the Proxima b simulations is not stated. Table 3 lists no inclination for Proxima b, and Section 2.2.1 says that missing i is drawn from a uniform prior in cos(i) over 10-90 deg or 10-170 deg. If i is drawn from such a broad prior, the cloud in Figure 4 and the aperture fractions in Figure 6 are substantially affected by the unknown orbital inclination, and Figure 5's tight concentration after reducing sigma_T0 and sigma_omega_p cannot be used to support the claim that 'the uncertainty in planet position is driven almost entirely by large uncertainties in T0 and omega_p.' If i and Omega are fixed for Figures 5 and 6, that choice must be stated explicitly and its sensitivity examined. This is needed to support the recommendation in Section 4.2 and the Conclusion that refining T0 and omega_p is 'the' enabling step.
  3. [Section 4.1] The manuscript itself states in Section 4.1 that treating parameters as Gaussian and independent 'can introduce errors when predicting the planet's location' and recommends incorporating full covariances and asymmetric errors. This is precisely the approximation used to produce all quantitative Proxima b results in Section 3.2 and Figure 6. The paper should either implement that recommendation for the central case study, or explicitly re-frame Section 3.2 and Figure 6 as illustrative and conditional on the approximation. As written, the paper's own stated limitation undercuts the quantitative headline claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.1.1] The abstract contains a grammatical error: 'predicting their location on relative to the star' should be 'predicting their location relative to the star.'
  2. [Equation (1)] The third row of the position vector is labeled 'x' but should be 'z' to match the (x,y,z) notation in the surrounding text.
  3. [Table 3] The formatting of Table 3 is garbled in the draft: the T0 entries for the Faria and Suarez Mascareno solutions are not cleanly separated, and the value '24500008530.2' appears to contain an extra digit. Please clarify the table layout and units.
  4. [Section 2.1.2] The text says the paper's +Z direction is opposite the common RV convention, then says 'we assume the RV convention where +Z points away from the observer.' Please make the adopted convention for projecc unambiguous and state whether the 180-degree shift is applied to omega or to the position vector.
  5. [Figure 2 caption, Section 3.2] Several typos: 'most are close than 2 lambda/D' should be 'closer than'; 'there is a 7% chance it will be closer that 4 lambda/D' should be 'closer than'; 'closer that 4 lambda/D' in the same paragraph should be corrected.
  6. [Section 4.4] The statement that after about 25 periods the semi-major axis mean 'increases exponentially' appears to be a property of the chosen Monte Carlo propagation scheme rather than of the physical orbit. Please clarify that this is an artifact of repeatedly re-sampling uncorrelated Gaussian parameters period by period.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: predictions are Monte Carlo propagations of external literature orbit solutions; the acknowledged Gaussian-independence assumption is a limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its external inputs. projecc takes published orbital elements and uncertainties (Benedict et al. 2002, Rivera et al. 2010, Gaia NSS, Suárez Mascareño et al. 2020, Faria et al. 2022) and propagates them through Kepler's equation and a sky-plane projection. No parameter is fitted in this paper, and the headline Prox Cen b numbers (7% within 4λ/D for an ELT, 34% at α>110°, Figure 6 thresholds) are direct Monte Carlo consequences of the published uncertainties rather than quantities fitted to force the conclusion. The paper explicitly flags its main simplifying assumption: 'Currently the code is configured to accept only Gaussian distributions for most orbital parameters and treats each parameter as independent' (Sec. 2.4) and later concedes that 'treating parameters as Gaussian and independent, as we have done here, can introduce errors when predicting the planet's location' (Sec. 4.1). This is an admitted robustness limitation, not a circular reduction: the output is not equal to an input by construction, and the skeptical concern about T0–ω anti-correlation is a correctness/statistical-modeling issue, not a logical circularity. The GJ 876 b analysis cross-compares three independent external orbit solutions and does not lean on the present authors' prior work. Self-citations (Males et al. 2022, 2024; Limbach et al. 2022, 2024) are instrument and proposal context, not load-bearing evidence for the derivation. No uniqueness theorem, hidden ansatz, or renaming of a known result is present. Score 1 reflects only the mild input-selection influence (preferring the Suárez Mascareño solution) and the acknowledged independence assumption; the central derivation is otherwise a straightforward, externally sourced uncertainty propagation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard Keplerian orbital mechanics, a set of explicitly stated convention choices (omega_p = omega_star + 180 deg, +Z away from observer, Gaussian independent parameter errors), and the assumption that the literature orbit solutions remain valid at the observation epoch. The paper itself states the Gaussian/independence and no-uncertainty-growth assumptions as limitations. The mass-radius relation and the A_g = 0.45 and i = 60 deg assumptions are used only for the Figure 2 target list, not for the case-study conclusions. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (4)
  • Empirical mass-radius relation coefficients (Eq. D2) = 0.62 * (M/M_plus)^0.67; polynomial coefficients for 15.84 to 3591.1 M_plus
    Fitted to Rogers (2015), Uranus/Neptune, Fortney et al. (2007, 2010) to estimate planet radii when missing; used only in Figure 2 target contrast estimates.
  • Geometric albedo A_g = 0.45
    Chosen by hand for Figure 2 and web app contrast estimates; stated as arbitrary in Appendix C, between Earth and Jupiter albedos.
  • Assumed inclination for missing i = 60 deg
    Assigned as the mean inclination for a uniform half-sphere to targets without an inclination in the Exoplanet Archive; used only for Figure 2.
  • Illustrative reduced uncertainties sigma_T0 and sigma_omega_p = 10 hr, 2 deg
    Chosen by hand in Figure 5 to illustrate a hypothetical better-constrained orbit; not a fit or claim about current data.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Kepler's equation and orbit projection equations (Murray & Correia 2010; Mikkola 1987) are valid and correctly applied
    Used to propagate orbital elements into sky-plane positions in Section 2.2.2; standard celestial mechanics results.
  • domain assumption Published omega values refer to the star, so omega_p = omega_star + 180 deg
    Stated in Section 2.1.2 and Table 1 note: 'We assume reported values for omega refer to the star and apply a +180 deg offset to obtain omega for the planet, as this distinction is often not specified in the literature.' A wrong convention would shift predicted positions.
  • domain assumption The +Z axis convention in the RV literature is away from the observer, and a factor of -1 is applied where relevant
    Section 2.1.2: 'Unless stated in the relevant publication, we assume the RV convention where +Z points away from the observer, and apply a factor of -1 where relevant.' This convention choice affects the sky-plane orientation.
  • domain assumption Reported orbital parameters have Gaussian uncertainties and are statistically independent
    Stated in Section 2.2 and acknowledged in Sections 2.4 and 4.1 as an approximation that ignores covariances and non-Gaussian posteriors. All quantitative probabilities for Proxima Cen b depend on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Orbit solutions remain valid at the observation date; parameter uncertainties do not compound over time
    Section 4.4 states 'Currently projecc assumes published orbital parameter uncertainties remain valid at the proposed observation time' and then shows uncertainties can compound rapidly. The case-study predictions in Figures 3 through 5 use this assumption.
  • domain assumption A single Keplerian two-body model adequately describes GJ 876 b's astrometric signal
    Section 3.1 notes the Gaia NSS solution is 'derived by fitting a single Keplerian orbit' and 'it is unclear if this solution accounts for perturbations from the three other previously known GJ 876 planets.' The conclusion that the three solutions intersect relies on this.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21109 in / 20643 out tokens · 205979 ms · 2026-08-04T23:10:22.240271+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct Detection of Known Exoplanets in Reflected Light: Predicting Sky Position with Literature Orbit Solutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CE6UOI5E

@misc{pith2026250906747,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct Detection of Known Exoplanets in Reflected Light: Predicting Sky Position with Literature Orbit Solutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CE6UOI5E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06747}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The next generation of ground- and space-based observatories will enable direct imaging and characterization of cold, mature planets through thermal emission and, for the first time, reflected light detection. Known RV and astrometrically detected planets provide a known population for detection and characterization observations. However, many of the most promising targets lack orbital parameters of sufficient precision to confidently predict their location on relative to the star for a direct imaging campaign. We have developed \texttt{projecc}, an open source Python package designed to generate sky-plane planet location posteriors from literature orbit solutions. This tool aims to facilitate community preparation for direct imaging observations of known planets. In this work we describe \texttt{projecc} and use it to examine two case study systems relevant to reflected light imaging with ELTs: GJ~876~b, which we find has a well-constrained prediction, and Proxima Centauri b, whose location remains highly uncertain.%, as well as one potential target for \textsl{Roman} CGI, HD~219134~h, which we estimate has a 40\% probability of being in a detectable sky location at any given time. We provide a web app for exploring reflected light planet targets and their orbit solutions, including predictions from literature for 17 additional planets, located at https://reflected-light-planets.streamlit.app/. We also discuss future upgrades to \texttt{projecc}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06747 by Jared R. Males, Logan A. Pearce, Mary Anne Limbach.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the function of the projecc package. Users supply orbital parameter inputs to the Planet class. Then users supply the Planet object, an observation time, and number of simulation points to the OrbitSim class, which produces a set of N simulated realizations of the planet position at the observation date drawn from the orbital parameter distributions. The OrbitSim object contains 1xN ve… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Approximately 400 of the nearest (<70 pc) RV detected exoplanets in the Exoplanet Archive (accessed Jan 2025) accessible in the southern hemisphere (−65◦ < dec < 20◦ ). The bottom x-axis shows the maximum planet-star separation in λ/D units for a GMT￾sized primary (D= 25.4 m) at λ = 800 nm; the top x-axis shows the same for the ELT (D= 39 m); the y-axis shows the Lambertian planet-star flux contrast using … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: projecc predictions of the location of GJ 876 b on April 9th, 2025 for three orbital solutions, given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two views of the predicted sky position of Prox Cen b at the expected time of maximum elongation from the star drawn from parameters of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantifying improvement needed in ωp and T0 uncer￾tainties for Prox Cen b. Left: fraction of orbit simulations within an aperture of radius = 1λ/D for a GMT-sized primary at 0.8µm centered at the expected planet location for varying values of σωp and σT0 . Contours mark f = 0.16, 0.5, and 0.84. Right: same as left for an ELT-sized primary. The pink dot marks the current best values efforts to directly imag… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the empirical mass-radius relationship of Eqn. (D2) to known planets with measured M and R, and Teq < 1000 K. Given M, R can be constrained to 24% at 1σ, and 48% at 2σ. Also shown are the empirical and theoretical mass-radius curves of Fortney et al. (2007), Otegi et al. (2020), and Thorngren et al. (2019) as well as surface gravity contours. Currie, T., Brandt, G. M., Brandt, T. D., et al. 2… 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

74 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  2. [2]

    L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al

    Akeson, R. L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 989, doi: 10.1086/672273 Anglada-Escud´e, G., Amado, P. J., Barnes, J., et al. 2016, Nature, 536, 437, doi: 10.1038/nature19106 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1086/672273 2013

  3. [3]

    E., Marley, M

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b51 2019

  4. [4]

    F., McArthur, B

    Benedict, G. F., McArthur, B. E., Forveille, T., et al. 2002, ApJL, 581, L115, doi: 10.1086/346073

    work page doi:10.1086/346073 2002

  5. [5]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18538

    Blind, N., Restori, N., Chazelas, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18538. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18538

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    J., Angelo, I., et al

    Blunt, S., Wang, J. J., Angelo, I., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6663

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab6663 2020

  7. [7]

    R., Delacroix, C., et al

    Bowens, R., Meyer, M. R., Delacroix, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141109

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141109 2021

  8. [8]

    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

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    R., Lenzen, R., Pantin, E., et al

    Brandl, B. R., Lenzen, R., Pantin, E., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed

    Series, V ol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77352G, doi: 10.1117/12.857346

    doi:10.1117/12.857346

  11. [11]

    D., Dupuy, T

    Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., Li, Y ., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac042e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac042e 2021

  12. [12]

    Brown, R. A. 2015, ApJ, 805, 188, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/188

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/188 2015

  13. [13]

    L., Marley, M

    Cahoy, K. L., Marley, M. S., & Fortney, J. J. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 189, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/189 Carri´on-Gonz´alez, ´O., Garc´ıa Mu˜noz, A., Santos, N. C., et al. 2021, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2021–772, doi: 10.5194/epsc2021-772

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/189 2010

  14. [14]

    Correia, A. C. M., Couetdic, J., Laskar, J., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912700 15 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.1 1 Planet Radius [R/R ⊕ ] Planet Mass [M/M ⊕ ] Exoplanets Teq < 1000 K Solar System Fortney et al. (2007) Thorngren et al. (2019) Otegi et al. (2020) ad-hoc M-2-R 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 90...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912700 2010

  15. [15]

    M., Brandt, T

    Currie, T., Brandt, G. M., Brandt, T. D., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 198, doi: 10.1126/science.abo6192 De Rosa, R. J., Nielsen, E. L., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345877

    doi:10.1126/science.abo6192 2023

  16. [16]

    Deeg, H. J. 2015, A&A, 578, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425368

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425368 2015

  17. [17]

    2011, ApJS, 197, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/12

    Demory, B.-O., & Seager, S. 2011, ApJS, 197, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/12

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/12 2011

  18. [18]

    P., Su´arez Mascare˜no, A., Figueira, P., et al

    Faria, J. P., Su´arez Mascare˜no, A., Figueira, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142337

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142337 2022

  19. [19]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 5002, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2912

    Feng, F., Anglada-Escud´e, G., Tuomi, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5002, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2912

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2912 2019

  20. [20]

    Biases in orbit fitting of directly-imaged exoplanets with small orbital coverage

    Feng, F., Butler, R. P., V ogt, S. S., Holden, B., & Rui, Y . 2023, MNRAS, 525, 607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2297 Ferrer-Ch´avez, R., Wang, J. J., & Blunt, S. 2021, arXiv e-prints, 2103, arXiv:2103.12877. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210312877F

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    J., Baraffe, I., & Militzer, B

    Fortney, J. J., Baraffe, I., & Militzer, B. 2010, Giant Planet Interior Structure and Thermal Evolution, ed. S. Seager, 397–418. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010exop.book..397F

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    J., Marley, M

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

    doi:10.1086/512120 2007

  23. [23]

    P., Bonavita, M., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca408 2023

  24. [24]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S., & Sinukoff, E. 2018, PASP, 130, 044504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 Gaia Collaboration, Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023b, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 Give’on, A., Kern, B. ...

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 2018

  25. [25]

    8151, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets V , ed

    Series, V ol. 8151, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets V , ed. S. Shaklan, 815110, doi: 10.1117/12.895117

    work page doi:10.1117/12.895117

  26. [26]

    2023, A&A, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    Halbwachs, J.-L., Pourbaix, D., Arenou, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243969 2023

  27. [27]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  28. [28]

    D., et al

    Hinkley, S., Lacour, S., Marleau, G. D., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244727

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244727 2023

  29. [29]

    W., Myers, A

    Hogg, D. W., Myers, A. D., & Bovy, J. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2166 16

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/2166 2010

  30. [30]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.06966, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.06966

    Householder, A., & Weiss, L. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.06966, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.06966

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.06966 2022

  31. [31]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science\& Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  32. [32]

    2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Jensen-Clem, R., Hinz, P., von Kooten, M., et al. 2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    11823, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets X, ed

    Series, V ol. 11823, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets X, ed. S. B. Shaklan & G. J. Ruane, 1182309, doi: 10.1117/12.2594005

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2594005

  34. [34]

    2021, The Messenger, 182, 38, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5221

    Kasper, M., Cerpa Urra, N., Pathak, P., et al. 2021, The Messenger, 182, 38, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5221

    doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5221 2021

  35. [35]

    A., & Haffert, S

    Kenworthy, M. A., & Haffert, S. Y . 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.02907, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.02907

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.02907 2025

  36. [36]

    2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0415

    Lacy, B., Shlivko, D., & Burrows, A. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0415

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab0415 2019

  37. [37]

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

    Lagrange, A. M., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 57, doi: 10.1126/science.1187187

    doi:10.1126/science.1187187 2010

  38. [38]

    M., Wilkinson, C., Mˆalin, M., et al

    Lagrange, A. M., Wilkinson, C., Mˆalin, M., et al. 2025, Nature, 642, 905, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09150-4 Le Coroller, H., Nowak, M., Delorme, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037605

    doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09150-4 2025

  39. [39]

    A New Method for Finding Nearby White Dwarf Exoplanets and Detecting Biosignatures

    Limbach, M. A., Vanderburg, A., Stevenson, K. B., et al. 2022, A New Method for Finding Nearby White Dwarf Exoplanets and Detecting Biosignatures, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.12914

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.12914 2022

  40. [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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad74ed 2024

  41. [41]

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

    Llop-Sayson, J., Wang, J. J., Ruffio, J.-B., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac134a

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac134a 2021

  42. [42]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Lovis, C., Blind, N., Chazelas, B., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed

    Series, V ol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J. Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D. Vernet, 130961I, doi: 10.1117/12.3020142

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3020142

  44. [44]

    2012, ApJ, 747, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/25

    Madhusudhan, N., & Burrows, A. 2012, ApJ, 747, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/25

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/1/25 2012

  45. [45]

    Makarov, V . V . 2025, ApJL, 981, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb840

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb840 2025

  46. [46]

    R., Skemer, A

    Males, J. R., Skemer, A. J., & Close, L. M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/10

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/10 2013

  47. [47]

    R., Close, L

    Males, J. R., Close, L. M., Haffert, S., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    12185, Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, ed

    Series, V ol. 12185, Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, ed. L. Schreiber, D. Schmidt, & E. Vernet, 1218509, doi: 10.1117/12.2630584

    doi:10.1117/12.2630584

  49. [49]

    High-Contrast Imaging at First-Light of the GMT: The Preliminary Design of GMagAO-X

    Males, J. R., Close, L. M., Haffert, S. Y ., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.13014, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.13014 —. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.13007, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.13007

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.13014

  50. [50]

    2019, A&A, 622, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834194

    Mallonn, M., von Essen, C., Herrero, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834194

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834194 2019

  51. [51]

    W., Isaacson, H., Howard, A

    Marcy, G. W., Isaacson, H., Howard, A. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 210, 20, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/2/20

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/210/2/20 2014

  52. [52]

    C., Carter, A

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07837-8 2024

  53. [53]

    2023, A&A, 672, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345865

    Mesa, D., Gratton, R., Kervella, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345865

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345865 2023

  54. [54]

    1987, Celestial Mechanics, 40, 329, doi: 10.1007/BF01235850

    Mikkola, S. 1987, Celestial Mechanics, 40, 329, doi: 10.1007/BF01235850

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01235850 1987

  55. [55]

    D., & Correia, A

    Murray, C. D., & Correia, A. C. M. 2010, in Exoplanets, ed. A. Seager (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press), 15–23. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010exop.book...15M National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s, doi: 10.17226/26141

    doi:10.17226/26141 2010

  56. [56]

    M., et al

    Nowak, M., Lacour, S., Lagrange, A. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039039

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039039 2020

  57. [57]

    F., Bouchy, F., & Helled, R

    Otegi, J. F., Bouchy, F., & Helled, R. 2020, A&A, 634, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936482

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936482 2020

  58. [58]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9 2013

  59. [59]

    2011, The Exoplanet Handbook

    Perryman, M. 2011, The Exoplanet Handbook

    work page 2011

  60. [60]

    M., Rubini, P., Kiefer, F., & Chomez, A

    Philipot, F., Lagrange, A. M., Rubini, P., Kiefer, F., & Chomez, A. 2023, A&A, 670, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245396

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245396 2023

  61. [61]

    2001, A&A, 372, 935, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010597

    Pourbaix, D., & Arenou, F. 2001, A&A, 372, 935, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010597

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010597 2001

  62. [62]

    J., Laughlin, G., Butler, R

    Rivera, E. J., Laughlin, G., Butler, R. P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 890, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/890

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/1/890 2010

  63. [63]

    J., Lissauer, J

    Rivera, E. J., Lissauer, J. J., Butler, R. P., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 625, doi: 10.1086/491669

    doi:10.1086/491669 2005

  64. [64]

    Rogers, L. A. 2015, ApJ, 801, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/41

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/41 2015

  65. [65]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1305.5422, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1305.5422

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Breckinridge, J., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1305.5422, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1305.5422

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1305.5422 2013

  66. [66]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Stadler, E., Schreiber, L., Cortecchia, F., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    Schmidt, & E

    Jackson, D. Schmidt, & E. Vernet, 130976S, doi: 10.1117/12.3019157 Su´arez Mascare˜no, A., Faria, J. P., Figueira, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037745

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3019157 2020

  68. [68]

    2023, AJ, 166, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf5cc

    Thompson, W., Lawrence, J., Blakely, D., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf5cc

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf5cc 2023

  69. [69]

    P., Marley, M

    Thorngren, D. P., Marley, M. S., & Fortney, J. J. 2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 128, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ab4353 17

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab4353 2019

  70. [70]

    R., Birkby, J

    Vaughan, S. R., Birkby, J. L., Thatte, N., et al. 2024, Behind the Mask: can HARMONI@ELT detect biosignatures in the reflected light of Proxima b?, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.09589

    work page arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    E., et al

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

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  72. [72]

    2021, Nature Communications, 12, 922, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21176-6

    Wagner, K., Boehle, A., Pathak, P., et al. 2021, Nature Communications, 12, 922, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21176-6

    doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21176-6 2021

  73. [73]

    J., Kulikauskas, M., & Blunt, S

    Wang, J. J., Kulikauskas, M., & Blunt, S. 2021, whereistheplanet: Predicting positions of directly imaged companions, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2101.003

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    W., & Wyatt, M

    Xuan, J. W., & Wyatt, M. C. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2096, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2033

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2033 2020