Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 142 references

The paper shows that vAPP-enabled differential spectrophotometry can flag whether a directly imaged companion is varying on a single night, but cannot yet recover accurate variability amplitudes or periods when the observing run covers only

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 00:20 UTC pith:CK3KE4S5

load-bearing objection A solid, honest methods paper that quantifies vAPP differential spectrophotometry precision; the 270-degree false periodicity is a real soft spot and the abstract overstates the distinguishability claim. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.01384 v1 pith:CK3KE4S5 submitted 2025-11-03 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Chasing the storm: Investigating the application of high-contrast imaging techniques in producing precise exoplanet light curves

Ben J. Sutlieff , David S. Doelman , Jayne L. Birkby , Matthew A. Kenworthy , Jordan M. Stone , Frans Snik , Steve Ertel , Beth A. Biller
show 5 more authors
Charles E. Woodward Andrew J. Skemer Jarron M. Leisenring Alexander J. Bohn Luke T. Parker
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords high-contrast imagingexoplanet variabilitybrown dwarf variabilitydifferential spectrophotometryvector Apodizing Phase Platecoronagraphyadaptive opticsphotometric precision
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 paper tests how precisely ground-based differential spectrophotometry using a vector Apodizing Phase Plate (vAPP) coronagraph can measure brightness variations of directly imaged substellar companions. Its method is to inject artificial companions with known sinusoidal variability into real observations of the HD 1160 system, then reduce and detrend the data exactly as for a real companion. The result is that varying companions are recovered at high significance while flat-signal companions are not, but the recovered amplitudes and periods are biased when the run covers only about 2.4 cycles of the signal. The authors also simulate the known systematic sources and find residual systematics sit above photon noise without yet reaching a noise floor. The practical precision for an HD 1160 B-like companion is 4.9–7.0% RMS at 18-minute bins.

Core claim

The authors establish that vAPP-enabled differential spectrophotometry can cleanly separate varying from non-varying companions on a single night: artificial companions with an 8.8% semi-amplitude, 3.24-hour sinusoid were recovered at 5–6 sigma at two of three injection locations, while flat-signal companions at those same locations showed no significant periodogram peaks. However, none of the recovered periods, amplitudes, or phases matched the injected values, because the 7.8-hour observing sequence contained only about 2.4 periods. The detrended differential light curves of non-varying companions have RMS scatter of 4.9–7.0% at 18-minute bins, and the RMS follows white noise without plate

What carries the argument

The test bed is artificial companion injection using the instantaneous stellar PSF as a frame-dependent template, a step made possible by the vAPP coronagraph's unique ability to keep an image of the host star as a simultaneous photometric reference while suppressing starlight around the companion. The template captures frame-to-frame systematics that a real companion would see. Recovery is judged with differential white-light curves, multiple linear regression detrending, and Lomb-Scargle periodograms; the systematic sources are dissected with pupil-plane optical simulations of Zernike aberrations (a polynomial basis for wavefront distortions) and adaptive-optics residuals.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's reassurance that only low-order aberrations contaminate companion photometry rests on the assumption that wavefront-error power falls as frequency to the -1.5; a flatter on-sky spectrum would let high-order aberrations modulate companion flux by up to ~10%.

What would settle it

Measure the per-mode non-common-path wavefront error on the same instrument (e.g., with a phase-diversity focal-plane sensor) and check whether the Zernike power spectrum indeed falls as frequency^-1.5; if it is flatter, the conclusion that only low-order aberrations matter is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • Longer observing baselines covering several periods are needed before measured variability periods and amplitudes can be trusted; a single night is insufficient for a ~3-hour signal.
  • The 8.8% semi-amplitude previously reported for HD 1160 B exceeds the 4.9–7.0% systematic floor, so that signal is likely astrophysical rather than instrumental.
  • Precision degrades steeply with contrast (14.4% at 1 mag fainter, 36.6% at 2 mag fainter for the same 18-minute bins), but a modest cadence sacrifice to ~40-minute bins restores 5.7% for a 1-mag-fainter companion.
  • Because the RMS vs bin size follows white noise without plateauing, adding more data should continue to improve precision; the data are not yet systematics-limited.
  • Focal-plane wavefront sensing and predictive control of the adaptive-optics system should reduce the non-common-path and AO-residual systematics that remain in these light curves.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The colour-blind injection technique likely makes recovery look cleaner than it would for a real, redder companion: colour-dependent effects (e.g., differential airmass response) are not captured by using the stellar PSF as template, so real-world amplitudes may be noisier than the 5–6 sigma detections reported here.
  • The anomalous short-period peak at the 270° injection position, present in both varying and non-varying injected companions, suggests field-dependent systematics (bad pixels, stray light, or nod-induced window functions) can masquerade as astrophysical variability; injecting companions at multiple positions should become a standard diagnostic.
  • The -1.5 power-law assumption for the wavefront-error spectrum is the pivotal lever in the simulation; if on-sky measurements reveal a flatter spectrum, the conclusion that only low-order aberrations matter would need revisiting.
  • The injection-recovery pipeline could be extended to multi-night datasets and used to calibrate more flexible detrending models (e.g., Gaussian processes), which might absorb the short-period systematics that linear regression misses.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates the vAPP-enabled differential spectrophotometry technique for measuring variability of high-contrast companions, using LBT/ALES+dgvAPP360 data of the HD 1160 system. Six artificial companions are injected into the data at three field positions (90°, 180°, 270° relative to HD 1160 B): three non-varying and three with a 3.239 h, 8.8% semi-amplitude sinusoidal signal. The recovered light curves are analyzed with Lomb-Scargle periodograms and sinusoidal fits. The paper also uses HCIPy simulations to isolate the contributions of non-common path aberrations, AO residuals, photon noise, and thermal background. The central claims are that varying companions are distinguishable from non-varying ones, that variability periods and amplitudes cannot be accurately recovered from a single night covering ~2.4 periods, and that residual systematics remain above photon noise in 18-minute bins (RMS 4.9-7.0%).

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful empirical calibration for ground-based high-contrast differential photometry. The frame-dependent stellar-PSF injection methodology is a genuine improvement over static-template injection, and the injection/recovery experiment is a forward model with known input parameters. The paper is also honest in reporting the anomalous 270° position and in acknowledging the color-mismatch limitation of using stellar PSFs as companion templates. The HCIPy simulations usefully identify thermal background and photon noise as the dominant noise sources in raw companion photometry. However, the headline distinguishability claim is weakened by the paper's own 270° false-positive result, and the NCPA conclusion depends on an unvalidated power-law slope. These issues are fixable but currently make the abstract overstate the robustness of the method.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §4; Fig. 9; Table 1] The abstract's first headline claim, 'varying companions are distinguishable from non-varying companions', is contradicted by the paper's own 270° injection. The non-varying companion at 270° shows a strong Lomb-Scargle peak at 0.619 h with several peaks below the 1% FAP threshold, and the varying companion at the same location has its strongest peak at 0.622 h rather than the injected 3.239 h. Thus at one of the three tested field positions a non-varying companion is flagged as periodic. The full text does acknowledge this in §5.1 and the conclusions, but the abstract remains unqualified. Please either qualify the claim (e.g., 'at two of three tested field positions') or, preferably, define an objective classification criterion (e.g., FAP threshold plus period agreement, or rejection of contaminated field positions) that makes the distinguishability claim falsifiable. As written, the ce
  2. [§3.2; Fig. 4] The conclusion that 'only the lowest-order aberrations are likely to affect flux measurements' rests on scaling Zernike-mode NCPA amplitudes by a power law with slope -1.5, described as 'conservative' but not justified by a citation or a sensitivity analysis. The top panel of Fig. 4 shows that equal-RMS high-order modes can produce companion-flux variations up to ~10%; a flatter real NCPA spectrum would therefore materially change the practical conclusion. Please add a sensitivity analysis over plausible slopes (e.g., -1.0 to -2.5) or use measured NCPA spectra from LBTI/ALES, and soften the wording accordingly. The missing citation in the Fig. 4 caption ('[ref]') should also be filled.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2] The text gives the RMS values for the varying companions at 200 frames/bin as '0.0921, 0.827, and 0.0830'. The second value appears to be a typo for 0.0827 (or similar); please check and correct.
  2. [§4] The statement that there are 'no peaks above 1σ' for the non-varying 90° and 180° companions is inconsistent with the FAP-based threshold discussion in the same paragraph. This should read 'no peaks above the 1% false-alarm threshold' (or an equivalent statistical statement).
  3. [Table 1] The fitted sinusoid periods, semi-amplitudes, and phases are quoted without uncertainties, even though the paper's claim that these parameters are not accurately recovered depends on the size of the discrepancies. Please add formal uncertainties (e.g., from the non-linear least-squares fits).
  4. [Data Availability] The statement that data 'will be available ... shortly after publication' is weaker than providing a persistent DOI at submission. If possible, provide access to the reduced light curves and simulation outputs for reproducibility during review.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: forward-model injection/recovery; self-citations are methodological, not load-bearing.

full rationale

Score 2. The paper is a controlled injection/recovery study: known sinusoidal signals are added to real data and then measured with an independent Lomb-Scargle pipeline, so the recovered periods (3.337, 3.027, 2.644 h vs injected 3.239 h) are not forced to equal the input. The heavy reliance on Sutlieff et al. (2023) is for the dataset, reduction recipe, detrending regressors, and the 8.8%/3.239 h sinusoid used as the injection template; these are methodological reuse, not circularity. The conclusion that 8.8% HD 1160 B variability is 'likely astrophysical' compares a previously fitted amplitude with the measured 4.9-7.0% RMS of non-varying injections; this is a comparison, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The NCPA simulations assume a power-law slope of -1.5 (a stated, externally-cited assumption) and the conclusion 'only lowest-order aberrations matter' follows from that assumption rather than from fitting the outcome. The paper also openly flags limitations that reduce claim strength: color mismatch of the stellar-PSF templates, single dataset, and the 270-degree false periodicity (Section 4/Figure 9) which is an empirical caveat to the abstract's 'distinguishable' claim, but it is not a circularity. No equation or fitted value reduces to the target result by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The central claims rest on prior data and fits (Sutlieff et al. 2023), literature contrast values, and several simulation hyper-parameters. The most consequential ad hoc choices are the -1.5 NCPA power-law slope and the empirically matched noise levels, since they directly shape the conclusions about which aberrations matter and which noise source dominates.

free parameters (6)
  • Injected variability signal parameters = P=3.239 h, semi-amplitude=0.088, phase=0.228, y-offset=0.993
    Taken from the Sutlieff et al. (2023) sinusoidal fit to HD 1160 B; used as the ground truth for injection/recovery tests.
  • Artificial companion contrast = Delta L' = 6.35 mag = 2.88e-3, plus 1 and 2 mag fainter variants
    Contrast of HD 1160 B from Nielsen et al. (2012); the fainter variants are exploratory choices.
  • NCPA Zernike mode RMS and power-law slope = 120 nm RMS per mode; slope -1.5
    The -1.5 slope is described as a conservative estimate but is an assumed distribution; it drives the conclusion that only low-order aberrations matter.
  • Simulated photon flux = 40,000 photons per frame
    Empirically matched to the count levels of the HD 1160 data (Section 3.3).
  • Simulated background noise level = 12 counts (read-noise option)
    Empirically matched to the statistics of the HD 1160 data (Section 3.3).
  • AO simulation parameters = seeing=1.1'', coherence time=15 ms, 500 Zernike modes, lag=2 frames
    Chosen to reproduce reported LBTI performance (Strehl ~85% H-band, ~98% at 3.7 um); not independently measured here.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption HD 1160 A is non-variable at the 0.03% level and therefore a valid photometric reference.
    Taken from Sutlieff et al. (2023) using TESS data; if false, the differential light curves would contain stellar variability.
  • domain assumption The instantaneous stellar PSF is a valid template for a real companion's PSF, neglecting colour differences.
    Used in Section 2.3; the authors explicitly acknowledge this omits colour-dependent systematics and may make recovery optimistic.
  • ad hoc to paper Zernike-mode NCPA amplitudes follow a power law with slope -1.5 in radial frequency.
    Introduced in Section 3.2 as a 'conservative estimate'; the low-order-only conclusion depends on this slope.
  • domain assumption Thermal background noise can be modeled as read noise with an empirically matched level of 12 counts.
    Section 3.3: the authors chose the NoisyDetector read-noise option rather than a physical thermal background model.
  • domain assumption HCIPy correctly models coupled NCPA/AO residuals and coronagraphic propagation for the dgvAPP360.
    The simulation results in Section 3 rely on the fidelity of the HCIPy instrument model.
  • standard math Lomb-Scargle false-alarm probabilities are valid for these unevenly sampled, detrended light curves.
    Standard periodogram statistics; the paper notes that the on/off nodding window function can produce peaks at periods <1 h.
  • domain assumption The injected sinusoidal variability is achromatic across the 30 wavelength channels.
    The authors note real companion variability is likely chromatic, so this simplification may make recovery easier than for real targets.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28883 in / 11957 out tokens · 120200 ms · 2026-08-04T00:20:57.195911+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Substellar companions such as exoplanets and brown dwarfs exhibit changes in brightness arising from top-of-atmosphere inhomogeneities, providing insights into their atmospheric structure and dynamics. This variability can be measured in the light curves of high-contrast companions from the ground by combining differential spectrophotometric monitoring techniques with high-contrast imaging. However, ground-based observations are sensitive to the effects of turbulence in Earth's atmosphere, and while adaptive optics (AO) systems and bespoke data processing techniques help to mitigate these, residual systematics can limit photometric precision. Here, we inject artificial companions to data obtained with an AO system and a vector Apodizing Phase Plate coronagraph to test the level to which telluric and other systematics contaminate such light curves, and thus how well their known variability signals can be recovered. We find that varying companions are distinguishable from non-varying companions, but that variability amplitudes and periods cannot be accurately recovered when observations cover only a small number of periods. Residual systematics remain above the photon noise in the light curves but have not yet reached a noise floor. We also simulate observations to assess how specific systematic sources, such as non-common path aberrations and AO residuals, can impact aperture photometry as a companion moves through pupil-stabilised data. We show that only the lowest-order aberrations are likely to affect flux measurements, but that thermal background noise is the dominant source of scatter in raw companion photometry. Predictive control and focal-plane wavefront sensing techniques will help to further reduce systematics in data of this type.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.01384 by Alexander J. Bohn, Andrew J. Skemer, Ben J. Sutlieff, Beth A. Biller, Charles E. Woodward, David S. Doelman, Frans Snik, Jarron M. Leisenring, Jayne L. Birkby, Jordan M. Stone, Luke T. Parker, Matthew A. Kenworthy, Steve Ertel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The left-hand and centre panels are examples of the final processed LBT/ALES+dgvAPP360 images produced when the data were median-combined in both time and wavelength. Left: the case where no artificial companions were injected to the data, so only the bright host star HD 1160 A and its bona fide companion HD 1160 B is visible. Centre: similar to the left-hand panel, but three artificial companions have bee… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The raw differential white-light curves for each of the injected artificial companions are shown in lighter colours in each panel, binned to 18 minutes of integration time per bin. The detrended differential white-light curves, after division by the multiple linear regression model to remove the modelled systematic trends, are then overplotted in darker colours. The left-hand panels show the light curves f… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated point-spread functions. The left-hand panel shows the PSF for the residual wavefront error after adaptive optics correction. The centre panel shows the same PSF simulated with photon noise, assuming a photon flux of 40.000 photons for a single image. This photon number is empirically matched to the counts in a single frame of the HD 1160 data. The right panel shows the same PSF as the left panel … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated aperture photometry measurements for the star (left panels) and the companion (right panels) for the three aberration and noise scenarios. MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histograms of the simulated photometric measurements for the star in the left panel and the companion in the right panel. The three colours indicate the three aberration and noise scenarios; residual wavefront error after adaptive optics correction, photon noise, and noise due to the thermal background. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Time (hours) 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 Normalised Flux [PITH_FULL_… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The orange line is the raw differential light curve for the (non￾variable) simulated companion in the scenario that includes the residual wavefront error after adaptive optics correction, the photon noise, and the noise due to the thermal background. For comparison, we also show the raw differential light curve of the 90° artificial companion injected to the real dataset with no variability in Section 2 (l… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The Lomb-Scargle periodograms for the differential white-light curves of each artificial companion. The left-hand panels are the periodograms for the companions injected without any variability, while the right-hand panels are those for the companions injected at the same coordinates but with a sinusoidal variability signal. The vertical dotted lines indicate the ∼3.24 h period of the injected variability … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The top row shows the sinusoidal variability signal that was given to the artificial companions injected with variability, as a function of time in the left-hand panel and phase-folded to its 3.24 hour period on the right. The left-hand panels of the following three rows show the detrended differential white-light curves of the three artificial companions that were injected with this variability, reproduc… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The RMS of the binned detrended differential white-light curves of the six injected artificial companions as a function of bin size. The theoretical white noise model is also shown. 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 Frames per bin (bin size) 10 2 10 1 10 0 RMS 90° injection, non-varying 90° injection, non-varying, 1 mag fainter 90° injection, non-varying, 2 mag fainter White noise model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The RMS of the binned detrended differential white-light curves of the three non-varying artificial companions injected at the 90° injection position with different contrasts as a function of bin size. The theoretical white noise model for the brightest injection is also shown. RMS for a range of bin sizes ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] 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

142 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    N., Jayawardhana R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768..121A 768, 121

    Apai D., Radigan J., Buenzli E., Burrows A., Reid I. N., Jayawardhana R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768..121A 768, 121

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/121 2013

  2. [3]

    Apai D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/40 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...820...40A 820, 40

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/40 2016

  3. [4]

    Apai D., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aam9848 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...357..683A 357, 683

    doi:10.1126/science.aam9848 2017

  4. [5]

    Artigau \'E ., Bouchard S., Doyon R., Lafreni \`e re D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1534 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...701.1534A 701, 1534

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/1534 2009

  5. [6]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..33A 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [9]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...778L..10B 778, L10

    Biller B. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...778L..10B 778, L10

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/l10 2013

  9. [10]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/L23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813L..23B 813, L23

    Biller B. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/L23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813L..23B 813, L23

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/l23 2015

  10. [11]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa5a6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155...95B 155, 95

    Biller B. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa5a6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155...95B 155, 95

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaa5a6 2018

  11. [12]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503..743B 503, 743

    Biller B. A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503..743B 503, 743

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab202 2021

  12. [13]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.2207B 532, 2207

    Biller B. A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.2207B 532, 2207

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1602 2024

  13. [14]

    Bonnefoy M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528L..15B 528, L15

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016224 2011

  14. [15]

    P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...632A..48B 632, A48

    Bos S. P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...632A..48B 632, A48

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936062 2019

  15. [16]

    P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...639A..52B 639, A52

    Bos S. P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...639A..52B 639, A52

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037910 2020

  16. [17]

    P., Zhou Y., Morley C

    Bowler B. P., Zhou Y., Morley C. V., Kataria T., Bryan M. L., Benneke B., Batygin K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893L..30B 893, L30

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8197 2020

  17. [18]

    Bradley L., et al., 2022, astropy/photutils:, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.6385735 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6385735

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.6385735 2022

  18. [19]

    J., Simard L., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Briesemeister Z., et al., 2018, in Evans C. J., Simard L., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII. p. 107022Q ( @eprint arXiv 1808.03356 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2312859

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [20]

    W., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..244B 157, 244

    Briesemeister Z. W., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..244B 157, 244

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab1901 2019

  20. [21]

    Broeg C., Fern \'a ndez M., Neuh \"a user R., 2005, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200410350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AN....326..134B 326, 134

    doi:10.1002/asna.200410350 2005

  21. [22]

    Cantalloube F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...620L..10C 620, L10

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834311 2018

  22. [23]

    Cantalloube F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...638A..98C 638, A98

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937397 2020

  23. [24]

    Chen X., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.3758C 539, 3758

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf737 2025

  24. [25]

    C., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..152C 823, 152

    Cushing M. C., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..152C 823, 152

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/152 2016

  25. [26]

    P., Huber K

    Czesla S., Schr \"o ter S., Schneider C. P., Huber K. F., Pfeifer F., Andreasen D. T., Zechmeister M., 2019, PyA: Python astronomy-related packages ( @eprint ascl 1906.010 )

    2019

  26. [27]

    Diamond-Lowe H., Berta-Thompson Z., Charbonneau D., Kempton E. M. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aac6dd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156...42D 156, 42

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac6dd 2018

  27. [28]

    M., Charbonneau D., Buchhave L

    Diamond-Lowe H., Mendon c a J. M., Charbonneau D., Buchhave L. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acbf39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..169D 165, 169

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acbf39 2023

  28. [29]

    S., Snik F., Warriner N

    Doelman D. S., Snik F., Warriner N. Z., Escuti M. J., 2017, in Shaklan S., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 10400, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. p. 104000U ( @eprint arXiv 1709.09897 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2273406

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [30]

    S., Por E

    Doelman D. S., Por E. H., Ruane G., Escuti M. J., Snik F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab755f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PASP..132d5002D 132, 045002

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab755f 2020

  30. [31]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1364/AO.422155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApOpt..60D..52D 60, D52

    Doelman D. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1364/AO.422155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApOpt..60D..52D 60, D52

    doi:10.1364/ao.422155 2021

  31. [32]

    S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5d52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..217D 163, 217

    Doelman D. S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5d52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..217D 163, 217

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5d52 2022

  32. [33]

    Ertel S., et al., 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. p. 1144607, @doi 10.1117/12.2561849

    doi:10.1117/12.2561849 2020

  33. [34]

    Fowler J., Van Kooten M. A. M., Jensen-Clem R., 2022, in Schreiber L., Schmidt D., Vernet E., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 12185, Adaptive Optics Systems VIII. p. 1218582 ( @eprint arXiv 2208.00984 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2629521

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [35]

    R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..182F 965, 182

    Fuda N., Apai D., Nardiello D., Tan X., Karalidi T., Bedin L. R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..182F 965, 182

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c84 2024

  35. [36]

    P., Aigrain S., Roberts S., Evans T

    Gibson N. P., Aigrain S., Roberts S., Evans T. M., Osborne M., Pont F., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19915.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.2683G 419, 2683

    arXiv 2012

  36. [37]

    A., 1982, @doi [Optical Engineering] 10.1117/12.7972989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982OptEn..21..829G 21, 829

    Gonsalves R. A., 1982, @doi [Optical Engineering] 10.1117/12.7972989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982OptEn..21..829G 21, 829

    work page doi:10.1117/12.7972989 1982

  37. [38]

    T., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21932.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.3358G 427, 3358

    Goulding N. T., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21932.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.3358G 427, 3358

    arXiv 2012

  38. [39]

    arXiv:1707.00570

    Guyon O., Males J., 2017, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1707.00570 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170700570G p. arXiv:1707.00570

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.00570 2017

  39. [40]

    Y., et al., 2021, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.2.029001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JATIS...7b9001H 7, 029001

    Haffert S. Y., et al., 2021, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.2.029001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JATIS...7b9001H 7, 029001

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.7.2.029001 2021

  40. [41]

    Hallinan G., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature14619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Natur.523..568H 523, 568

    doi:10.1038/nature14619 2015

  41. [42]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

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

  42. [43]

    M., Vran J.-P., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Hartung M., et al., 2014, in Marchetti E., Close L. M., Vran J.-P., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9148, Adaptive Optics Systems IV. p. 91485Q ( @eprint arXiv 1407.7895 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2056661

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [44]

    Hinkley S., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509063 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...654..633H 654, 633

    doi:10.1086/509063 2007

  44. [45]

    M., et al., 2016, in Malbet F., Creech-Eakman M

    Hinz P. M., et al., 2016, in Malbet F., Creech-Eakman M. J., Tuthill P. G., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9907, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging V. p. 990704, @doi 10.1117/12.2233795

    doi:10.1117/12.2233795 2016

  45. [46]

    M., Skemer A., Stone J., Montoya O

    Hinz P. M., Skemer A., Stone J., Montoya O. M., Durney O., 2018, in Evans C. J., Simard L., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII. p. 107023L, @doi 10.1117/12.2314289

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2314289 2018

  46. [47]

    Horne K., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/131801 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986PASP...98..609H 98, 609

    doi:10.1086/131801 1986

  47. [48]

    H., Baliunas S

    Horne J. H., Baliunas S. L., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...302..757H 302, 757

    doi:10.1086/164037 1986

  48. [49]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  49. [50]

    W., et al., 2024, in Kammerer J., Sallum S., Sanchez-Bermudez J., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Isbell J. W., et al., 2024, in Kammerer J., Sallum S., Sanchez-Bermudez J., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 13095, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging IX. p. 1309506, @doi 10.1117/12.3027270

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3027270 2024

  50. [51]

    Z., Cetre S., McEwen E., Wizinowich P., Ragland S., Mawet D., Graham J., 2019, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series

    Jensen-Clem R., Bond C. Z., Cetre S., McEwen E., Wizinowich P., Ragland S., Mawet D., Graham J., 2019, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. p. 111170W ( @eprint arXiv 1909.05302 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2529687

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [52]

    A., Mandel E., 2003, in Payne H

    Joye W. A., Mandel E., 2003, in Payne H. E., Jedrzejewski R. I., Hook R. N., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII. p. 489

    2003

  52. [53]

    S., Buenzli E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825...90K 825, 90

    Karalidi T., Apai D., Marley M. S., Buenzli E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825...90K 825, 90

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/2/90 2016

  53. [54]

    A., Haffert S

    Kenworthy M. A., Haffert S. Y., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-021225-022840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ARA&A..63..179K 63, 179

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-021225-022840 2025

  54. [55]

    Kipping D., Bakos G., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...733...36K 733, 36

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/1/36 2011

  55. [56]

    M., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1187187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...329...57L 329, 57

    Lagrange A. M., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1187187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...329...57L 329, 57

    doi:10.1126/science.1187187 2010

  56. [57]

    M., Schreiber L., Schmidt D., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Lamb M., Norton A., Macintosh B., Correia C., V \'e ran J.-P., Marois C., Sivanandam S., 2018, in Close L. M., Schreiber L., Schmidt D., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 10703, Adaptive Optics Systems VI. p. 107035M, @doi 10.1117/12.2313458

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2313458 2018

  57. [58]

    M., et al., 2012, in McLean I

    Leisenring J. M., et al., 2012, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV. p. 84464F, @doi 10.1117/12.924814

    work page doi:10.1117/12.924814 2012

  58. [59]

    Lew B. W. P., et al., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5f59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159..125L 159, 125

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5f59

  59. [60]

    Lew B. W. P., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb81d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903...15L 903, 15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb81d

  60. [61]

    Liu P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A.115L 674, A115

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245333 2023

  61. [62]

    Liu P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.6624L 527, 6624

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3502 2024

  62. [63]

    R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    Lomb N. R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    doi:10.1007/bf00648343 1976

  63. [64]

    D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acbd4b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..216L 165, 216

    Long J. D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acbd4b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..216L 165, 216

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acbd4b 2023

  64. [65]

    Madurowicz A., et al., 2019, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.4.049003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019JATIS...5d9003M 5, 049003

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.5.4.049003 2019

  65. [66]

    Maio F., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202553672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...698A..52M 698, A52

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553672 2025

  66. [67]

    R., et al., 2016, in Marchetti E., Close L

    Males J. R., et al., 2016, in Marchetti E., Close L. M., V \'e ran J.-P., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9909, Adaptive Optics Systems V. p. 990952, @doi 10.1117/12.2234105

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2234105 2016

  67. [68]

    R., Fitzgerald M

    Males J. R., Fitzgerald M. P., Belikov R., Guyon O., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac0f0c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASP..133j4504M 133, 104504

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac0f0c 2021

  68. [69]

    Manjavacas E., et al., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf88f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..101M 157, 101

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaf88f

  69. [70]

    Manjavacas E., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab13b9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...875L..15M 875, L15

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab13b9 2041

  70. [71]

    M., Biller B

    Manjavacas E., Karalidi T., Vos J. M., Biller B. A., Lew B. W. P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac174c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..179M 162, 179

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac174c 2021

  71. [72]

    L., Hart M., Hubin N., Wizinowich P

    Marois C., Macintosh B., V \'e ran J.-P., 2010, in Ellerbroek B. L., Hart M., Hubin N., Wizinowich P. L., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7736, Adaptive Optics Systems II. p. 77361J, @doi 10.1117/12.857225

    work page doi:10.1117/12.857225 2010

  72. [73]

    Martinez P., Loose C., Aller Carpentier E., Kasper M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118459 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...541A.136M 541, A136

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118459 2012

  73. [74]

    F., Dohlen K., Puget P., Beuzit J

    Martinez P., Kasper M., Costille A., Sauvage J. F., Dohlen K., Puget P., Beuzit J. L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...554A..41M 554, A41

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220820 2013

  74. [75]

    C., Fazio G

    Mawet D., et al., 2012, in Clampin M. C., Fazio G. G., MacEwen H. A., Oschmann Jacobus M. J., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 8442, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. p. 844204 ( @eprint arXiv 1207.5481 ), @doi 10.1117/12.927245

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  75. [76]

    M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...83M 965, 83

    McCarthy A. M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...83M 965, 83

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c76 2024

  76. [77]

    M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9eaf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...981L..22M 981, L22

    McCarthy A. M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9eaf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...981L..22M 981, L22

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9eaf 2025

  77. [78]

    pp 56 -- 61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    M c K inney W., 2010, in S t\'efan van der W alt J arrod M illman eds, P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference. pp 56 -- 61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    doi:10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a 2010

  78. [79]

    Mendui \ n a-Fern \'a ndez \'A ., Tecza M., Thatte N., 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. p. 114472L, @doi 10.1117/12.2560994

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2560994 2020

  79. [80]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..154M 799, 154

    Metchev S. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..154M 799, 154

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/154 2015

  80. [81]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..181M 883, 181

    Miles-P \'a ez P. A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..181M 883, 181

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d25 2019

Showing first 80 references.