Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 54 references

A planet-mass object's hydrogen line shifts, fades 43% in an hour, pointing to star-like accretion.

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

2026-08-03 17:04 UTC pith:7GQZAIFP

load-bearing objection Solid, honest observational paper; the variability claim survives the slit-loss concern, but the systematics need quantitative treatment. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28924 v1 pith:7GQZAIFP submitted 2026-07-31 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Asymmetric, variable Hα line profile in planetary mass object SR 12 c

Jun Hashimoto , Yuhiko Aoyama , Michihiro Takami , Shinsuke Takasao This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords accretionplanetary-mass companionH-alpha line profilehigh-resolution spectroscopymagnetospheric accretiontime-domain astronomySR 12 ccircumplanetary disk
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 reports high-spectral-resolution observations of the H-alpha line from the planetary-mass companion SR 12 c. Over five consecutive 30-minute exposures, the line is always blueshifted and asymmetric, with its peak moving from about -30 to -10 km/s while the total flux falls by 43.6 +/- 6.4% within the first hour. The authors interpret the blueshifted asymmetry—either emission absorbed by infalling gas or geometric occultation by the inner circumplanetary disk—as a signature of magnetospheric accretion, the process recognized in young stars. They note that an alternative boundary-layer accretion plus failed-wind scenario cannot be excluded. If the interpretation is correct, SR 12 c accretes in a star-like manner, supporting the idea that planetary-mass companions form and grow through the same mechanism as stars.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the H-alpha emission line of SR 12 c is spectrally resolved, asymmetric, and blueshifted in every exposure, and that its shape changes on hour-long timescales: the peak velocity shifts from roughly -30 to -10 km/s and the integrated flux decreases by 43.6 +/- 6.4% (relative to peak) over the sequence, with the change occurring in the first hour. All five profiles are asymmetric with respect to the systemic velocity, which the authors attribute to either redshifted absorption by accreting material or blueward asymmetry caused by occultation of the redshifted part of the flow by the inner circumplanetary disk. The measured line width of about 100 km/s matches the

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the spectrally resolved H-alpha emission-line profile of SR 12 c, observed at a resolution of 6-7.5 km/s. The profile's blueshifted peak and asymmetric wings encode the geometry of the accretion flow: redshifted absorption betrays infalling gas along the line of sight, while blueward asymmetry arises when the inner disk occults the redshifted portion of the flow. The line's time-dependence—the 20 km/s peak shift and 43.6% flux drop—then probes the stability of the accretion flow. The paper uses Gaussian fits to the line wings to extract the line width and peak velocity, comparing these with expected free-fall velocities for the object's mass and radius.

Load-bearing premise

The hour-scale changes in H-alpha flux and peak velocity are intrinsic to SR 12 c, rather than artifacts of variable slit losses, guiding drift, or seeing changes during the five exposures.

What would settle it

A continuous observation of SR 12 c over several hours with the object held at a fixed position on a wider slit, while independently monitoring seeing and guiding, would settle the point: if the H-alpha flux and peak variations track the seeing or slit position, the 43.6% variability is instrumental; if they persist at fixed slit position, they are intrinsic to the accretion flow.

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

If this is right

  • If magnetospheric accretion operates on SR 12 c, accretion onto planetary-mass companions is not qualitatively different from accretion onto young stars, strengthening the analogy between star and planet formation.
  • Hour-scale variability of this amplitude means single-epoch accretion-rate estimates for such objects are unreliable; variability must be characterized before inferring accretion rates.
  • The 20 km/s peak shift is only detectable at spectral resolutions of roughly 30,000 or better, so high-resolution spectroscopy is necessary to identify such features in other planetary-mass objects.
  • The non-detection of higher-order Balmer lines here, despite a previous detection, suggests the Balmer decrement is time-variable, possibly indicating changes in the density or temperature of the accretion flow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the variability is truly stochastic clumpy accretion, longer monitoring should show aperiodic changes rather than a repeating pattern; a ~10-hour rotation clock would instead revive rotational modulation as the explanation.
  • The combination of a blueshifted, asymmetric H-alpha line with only faint higher-order Balmer lines could be used to test whether shock-emission or infall-emission models dominate at different times.
  • If the boundary-layer plus failed-wind scenario were correct, magnetic fields would not be required to produce asymmetric profiles, complicating the use of line asymmetry as a unique magnetospheric-accretion diagnostic.
  • A practical testable extension: measure the rotation period of SR 12 c; if variability repeats with a period of about 10 hours, an occultation-based interpretation is favored, whereas aperiodic variability would support stochastic, clumpy accretion.

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 presents high-resolution (R ≈ 40,000–49,000) Subaru/HDS spectroscopy of the planetary-mass companion SR 12 c, taken as five consecutive 30-min exposures on 2025 August 9. Strong, spectrally resolved Hα emission is detected with a blueshifted, asymmetric profile whose peak moves from about −30 km/s in the first two exposures to about −10 km/s in the later three. The integrated Hα flux decreases by 43.6±6.4% from exposure #1 to #4 over roughly one hour and then remains stable. The authors discuss two main interpretations: magnetospheric accretion producing redshifted absorption and/or blueward asymmetry, or boundary-layer accretion combined with a failed wind. They favor magnetospheric accretion but explicitly keep the boundary-layer + failed-wind scenario alive. The paper also compares SR 12 c's variability amplitude with other planetary-mass objects and with earlier X-shooter observations.

Significance. If the variability is intrinsic to SR 12 c, this is a valuable addition to the small sample of planetary-mass objects with time-resolved, high-spectral-resolution Hα observations. The paper is appropriately cautious: it does not overclaim the physical interpretation, clearly distinguishes redshifted absorption from blueward asymmetry, and acknowledges alternative scenarios. A clear strength is that the variability is visible even in the uncorrected integrated fluxes in Table 2, so the detection does not rely solely on the slit-loss correction. The main weakness is that the quantitative 43.6±6.4% amplitude does not include any systematic uncertainty from the throughput correction, and the centering method is not fully characterized. These issues are local and addressable, but they affect the headline number.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2, Table 2] The headline variability amplitude (43.6±6.4% from #1 to #4) is based on the throughput-corrected fluxes in Table 2, but the throughput values in column (4) have no quoted uncertainty, and the target was centered by iteratively maximizing its Hα flux. Airmass and seeing increase monotonically across the sequence, so a systematic error in the assumed point-source transmission could bias the relative corrected fluxes. The raw fluxes (column 2) already show a ~48% decline, so the variability detection itself is robust; however, the precision of the 43.6% claim is not. Please provide an uncertainty budget for the throughput correction (e.g., from plausible centering offsets and seeing-measurement errors) and propagate it into the amplitude, or state the amplitude as approximate with a conservative systematic error. Reporting the measured spatial centroid of SR 12 c along the slit for each ex
  2. [§2, §3, Table 3] The Gaussian fits in Table 3 use the wing ranges −200<v<−20 and +80<v<+200 km/s, which include the unidentified systematic residuals at approximately ±175 km/s mentioned in §2. The statement that these residuals do not significantly alter the results is not demonstrated. Please quantify this by repeating the fits with the ±175 km/s regions masked, and report how the peak velocities and FWHMs in Table 3 change. If the effect is small, a quantitative statement would be reassuring; if not, the line-profile parameters should be revised or caveated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 3] The entries for #4 and #5 are identical to the decimal (peak velocity 4.5±3.9 km/s, FWHM 119.5±8.1 km/s). Please confirm this is not a copy-paste error, or state why the fits are exactly identical for two independent exposures.
  2. [§4.3] The comparison of SR 12 c's Hα amplitude (≈45%) with the Paβ amplitudes of GQ Lup b and GSC 06214−00210 b would be more informative if the line-dependence of variability were explicitly acknowledged; the current text notes the Paβ origin only parenthetically. A brief sentence clarifying that cross-line amplitude comparisons should be treated with caution would help.
  3. [Figure 1] The caption states that error bars are shown only for the first spectrum for presentation purposes. Consider showing error bars in all panels of Figure 2 or providing a note on typical SNR in the caption, since the eye can otherwise overinterpret the noisier later spectra.
  4. [§2] The text says 'the spectral resolution are 6.1–7.5 km/s'; grammar should be fixed. Also, the phrase 'unidentified systematic effects may be present' would benefit from a brief list of possible sources (e.g., imperfect flat-fielding, telluric residuals, CCD defects) or at least an estimate of their amplitude, even if they are not corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the reported variability and line-profile changes are direct observations, not outputs of a fitted model or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—the 43.6±6.4% Hα flux decline and the −30 to −10 km/s peak shift—are direct measurements from spectroscopy, with standard reduction and slit-loss corrections. The Gaussian fitting in Section 3 is descriptive, not used to generate the variability amplitude. The self-citations (e.g., Takasao et al. 2022; Aoyama et al. 2018; Hashimoto & Aoyama 2025; Aoyama et al. submitted) appear only in interpretive discussions of possible mechanisms and do not constrain the measured line profiles or flux trend. The potential systematic concern about slit-loss/throughput uncertainties is a data-quality limitation, not a case where the result is defined by its input. No equation reduces a prediction to a fitted parameter, and no load-bearing argument rests solely on a self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis relies on standard stellar-accretion models and on a previously measured systemic velocity. Free parameters are limited to descriptive Gaussian fits, which do not feed back into the models.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Adopted systemic velocity of SR 12 c is -6.8±3.0 km/s (Santamaría-Miranda et al. 2018).
    Used to classify the emission peaks as blueshifted and to measure asymmetry. If the systemic velocity were significantly different, the physical interpretation would change.
  • domain assumption Magnetospheric accretion geometry developed for low-mass stars (e.g., Kurosawa et al. 2006) applies to planetary-mass objects.
    The interpretation of blueward asymmetry and redshifted absorption relies on this analogy between T Tauri stars and SR 12 c.
  • domain assumption The failed-wind model of Takasao et al. (2022) is applicable to the circumplanetary environment of SR 12 c.
    Used to argue that boundary-layer accretion plus a failed wind can generate the observed asymmetry and variability, and is a viable alternative to magnetospheric accretion.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 13159 in / 10106 out tokens · 102318 ms · 2026-08-03T17:04:58.081125+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Young, forming planetary-mass objects often exhibit clear signatures of ongoing mass accretion and are thought to accrete material through processes analogous to those operating in young stars. In this study, we present high-spectral-resolution observations of asymmetric and time-variable H$\alpha$ line profiles from the planetary-mass companion SR~12~c. The H$\alpha$ line was observed at a resolving power of $R \sim 49,000$--40{,}000 (corresponding to 6.1--7.5~km~s$^{-1}$) using the High Dispersion Spectrograph (HDS) on the 8.2 m Subaru Telescope. Strong H$\alpha$ emission is clearly detected, while higher-order Balmer lines (H$\beta$, H$\gamma$, and H$\delta$) are not detected due to their faintness. The H$\alpha$ line profiles are well spectrally resolved and exhibit blueshifted emission peaks, which can be interpreted as arising from either (a) emission partially absorbed by redshifted accreting material along the line of sight and/or (b) geometric occultation by the inner circumplanetary disk. Moreover, the H$\alpha$ flux shows significant variability at 43.6~$\pm$~6.4~\% relative to the peak flux on hourly timescales. During a continuous 2.5-hour observing sequence, the emission component peaking at approximately $-30$~km~s$^{-1}$ weakened over the first hour. Subsequently, an emission component centered near $-10$~km~s$^{-1}$ became dominant and remained stable for the remaining 1.5 hours. We discuss possible interpretations of this behavior. Overall, these results support that magnetospheric accretion is operating in the planetary-mass object SR~12~c while a scenario combining boundary-layer accretion with a failed wind cannot be ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28924 by Jun Hashimoto, Michihiro Takami, Shinsuke Takasao, Yuhiko Aoyama.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Hα spectra of SR 12 c from five indi￾vidual datasets. All spectra show blueshifted peaks and are asymmetric with respect to the systemic velocity of −6.8 ± 3.0 km s−1 (A. Santamar´ıa-Miranda et al. 2018; see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.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

54 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alencar, S. H. P., Bouvier, J., Walter, F. M., et al. 2012, A&A, 541, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118395

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118395 2012

  2. [2]

    2025, ApJL, 992, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae09a8

    Almendros-Abad, V., Scholz, A., Damian, B., et al. 2025, ApJL, 992, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae09a8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae09a8 2025

  3. [3]

    2019, ApJL, 885, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5062

    Aoyama, Y., & Ikoma, M. 2019, ApJL, 885, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5062

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5062 2019

  4. [4]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11

    Aoyama, Y., Ikoma, M., & Tanigawa, T. 2018, ApJ, 866, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadc11 2018

  5. [5]

    1988, ApJ, 330, 350, doi: 10.1086/166476

    Bertout, C., Basri, G., & Bouvier, J. 1988, ApJ, 330, 350, doi: 10.1086/166476

    doi:10.1086/166476 1988

  6. [6]

    1982, A&AS, 47, 419

    Bertout, C., Wolf, B., Carrasco, L., & Mundt, R. 1982, A&AS, 47, 419

    1982

  7. [7]

    Bouvier, J., Alencar, S. H. P., Boutelier, T., et al. 2007, A&A, 463, 1017, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066021

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066021 2007

  8. [8]

    1992, ApJ, 386, 239, doi: 10.1086/171010 Hαof SR 12 c9

    Calvet, N., & Hartmann, L. 1992, ApJ, 386, 239, doi: 10.1086/171010 Hαof SR 12 c9

    work page doi:10.1086/171010 1992

  9. [9]

    M., van Capelleveen, R

    Close, L. M., van Capelleveen, R. F., Weible, G., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a5 2025

  10. [10]

    2025, ApJL, 990, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a0

    Currie, T., Hashimoto, J., Aoyama, Y., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a0

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a0 2025

  11. [11]

    2023, A&A, 676, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346221

    Demars, D., Bonnefoy, M., Dougados, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346221

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346221 2023

  12. [12]

    2026, A&A, 706, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554644

    Demars, D., Bonnefoy, M., Dougados, C., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554644

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554644 2026

  13. [13]

    1994, AJ, 108, 1056, doi: 10.1086/117134

    Edwards, S., Hartigan, P., Ghandour, L., & Andrulis, C. 1994, AJ, 108, 1056, doi: 10.1086/117134

    work page doi:10.1086/117134 1994

  14. [14]

    O., Bowler, B

    Finley, C. O., Bowler, B. P., Wu, Y.-L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.12862, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.12862

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12862 2026

  15. [15]

    J., Hillenbrand, L

    Fischer, W. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2023

  16. [16]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed

    Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 355, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11257 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-636...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11257 2016

  17. [17]

    Y., Bohn, A

    Haffert, S. Y., Bohn, A. J., de Boer, J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 329, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5 2019

  18. [18]

    Hanuschik, R. W. 2003, A&A, 407, 1157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030885

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030885 2003

  19. [19]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 135, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    Hartmann, L., Herczeg, G., & Calvet, N. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 135, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023347 2016

  20. [20]

    1994, ApJ, 426, 669, doi: 10.1086/174104

    Hartmann, L., Hewett, R., & Calvet, N. 1994, ApJ, 426, 669, doi: 10.1086/174104

    doi:10.1086/174104 1994

  21. [21]

    2025, AJ, 169, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad957e

    Hashimoto, J., & Aoyama, Y. 2025, AJ, 169, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad957e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad957e 2025

  22. [22]

    2020, AJ, 159, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab811e

    Hashimoto, J., Aoyama, Y., Konishi, M., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab811e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab811e 2020

  23. [23]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/112

    Ingleby, L., Calvet, N., Herczeg, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/112

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/112 2013

  24. [24]

    J., et al

    Ji, T., Serna, J., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 300, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3189

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3189 2026

  25. [25]

    2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322432

    Joergens, V., Bonnefoy, M., Liu, Y., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322432

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322432 2013

  26. [26]

    2018, A&A, 617, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    Keppler, M., Benisty, M., M¨ uller, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832957 2018

  27. [27]

    1991, ApJL, 370, L39, doi: 10.1086/185972

    Koenigl, A. 1991, ApJL, 370, L39, doi: 10.1086/185972

    doi:10.1086/185972 1991

  28. [28]

    J., & Symington, N

    Kurosawa, R., Harries, T. J., & Symington, N. H. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 580, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10527.x

    arXiv 2006

  29. [29]

    2011, AJ, 141, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/119

    Kuzuhara, M., Tamura, M., Ishii, M., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/119

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/119 2011

  30. [30]

    2011, MNRAS, 411, 2383, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17863.x

    Kwan, J., & Fischer, W. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2383, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17863.x

    arXiv 2011

  31. [31]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee9

    Marleau, G.-D., Aoyama, Y., Hashimoto, J., & Zhou, Y. 2024, ApJ, 964, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee9 2024

  32. [32]

    A., & Kraus, A

    Martinez, R. A., & Kraus, A. L. 2022, AJ, 163, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3745

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3745 2022

  33. [33]

    1998a, ApJ, 492, 743, doi: 10.1086/305069

    Muzerolle, J., Calvet, N., & Hartmann, L. 1998a, ApJ, 492, 743, doi: 10.1086/305069

    doi:10.1086/305069

  34. [34]

    2001, ApJ, 550, 944, doi: 10.1086/319779

    Muzerolle, J., Calvet, N., & Hartmann, L. 2001, ApJ, 550, 944, doi: 10.1086/319779

    doi:10.1086/319779 2001

  35. [35]

    1998b, AJ, 116, 455, doi: 10.1086/300428

    Muzerolle, J., Hartmann, L., & Calvet, N. 1998b, AJ, 116, 455, doi: 10.1086/300428

    work page doi:10.1086/300428

  36. [36]

    2002, PASJ, 54, 855, doi: 10.1093/pasj/54.6.855

    Noguchi, K., Aoki, W., Kawanomoto, S., et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, 855, doi: 10.1093/pasj/54.6.855

    doi:10.1093/pasj/54.6.855 2002

  37. [37]

    V., Espaillat, C

    Pittman, C. V., Espaillat, C. C., Robinson, C. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adef35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adef35 2025

  38. [38]

    V., & Lovelace, R

    Wick, J. V., & Lovelace, R. V. E. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1009, doi: 10.1086/377514 Santamar ´ ıa-Miranda, A., C´ aceres, C., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 2994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3325

    work page doi:10.1086/377514 2003

  39. [39]

    Snellen, I. A. G., Brandl, B. R., de Kok, R. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 63, doi: 10.1038/nature13253

    doi:10.1038/nature13253 2014

  40. [40]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f7e

    Takasao, S., Aoyama, Y., & Ikoma, M. 2021, ApJ, 921, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f7e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f7e 2021

  41. [41]

    Takasao, S., Tomida, K., Iwasaki, K., & Suzuki, T. K. 2022, ApJ, 941, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb1 2022

  42. [42]

    2023, A&A, 671, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245039

    Tessore, B., Soulain, A., Pantolmos, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245039

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245039 2023

  43. [43]

    Thanathibodee, T., Calvet, N., Bae, J., Muzerolle, J., & Hern´ andez, R. F. 2019, ApJ, 885, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44c1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab44c1 2019

  44. [44]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733, doi: 10.1117/12.968154

    doi:10.1117/12.968154 1986

  45. [45]

    2011, A&A, 536, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752

    Vernet, J., Dekker, H., D’Odorico, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117752 2011

  46. [46]

    C., Demars, D., et al

    Viswanath, G., Ringqvist, S. C., Demars, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450881

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450881 2024

  47. [47]

    Wilson, T. J. G., Matt, S., Harries, T. J., & Herczeg, G. J. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1397

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1397 2022

  48. [48]

    P., Sheehan, P

    Wu, Y.-L., Bowler, B. P., Sheehan, P. D., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6420

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6420 2022

  49. [49]

    Showman, A. P. 2016, ApJ, 818, 176, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/176

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/176 2016

  50. [50]

    Cruz, K. L. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L17 10Hashimoto et al

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/l17 2014

  51. [51]

    P., Wagner, K

    Zhou, Y., Bowler, B. P., Wagner, K. R., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abeb7a

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abeb7a 2021

  52. [52]

    P., et al

    Zhou, Y., Sanghi, A., Bowler, B. P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 934, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7fef

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7fef 2022

  53. [53]

    P., Yang, H., et al

    Zhou, Y., Bowler, B. P., Yang, H., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf9ec

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf9ec 2023

  54. [54]

    P., Sanghi, A., et al

    Zhou, Y., Bowler, B. P., Sanghi, A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 980, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb134

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb134 2025