Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 65 references

SMDET-1 is a fast-moving infrared source that appears to be a Y dwarf within 7.4 pc of the Sun.

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 01:31 UTC pith:5KJSGJAK

load-bearing objection A genuinely new fast-moving cold brown dwarf candidate with a solid two-instrument discovery; the headline distance and temperature are photometric upper limits that survive the main modeling choice but not the metal-poor-outlier caveat. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00046 v1 pith:5KJSGJAK submitted 2026-07-24 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

SMDET-1: a Nearby Y Dwarf Candidate

The Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 Collaboration: Aaron M. Meisner , Dan Caselden , Federico Marocco , J. Davy Kirkpatrick , Jonathan Gagn\'e , Adam C. Schneider , Samuel A. Beiler , Sergio B. Fajardo-Acosta
show 6 more authors
Jacqueline K. Faherty Stanimir A. Metchev Sam Barber Marc J. Kuchner Thomas P. Bickle Zafar Rustamkulov
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA
keywords brown dwarfsY dwarfsproper motionsWISESpitzerdeep learningsolar neighborhoodphotometric distance
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 reports the discovery of SMDET-1, a faint, fast-moving infrared source that appears to be one of the coldest and closest known brown dwarfs: a Y dwarf with an effective temperature below 391 K and a photometric distance under 7.4 pc. The object was found by a deep-learning search over time-resolved WISE images, then confirmed and measured with Spitzer imaging that detects it only at 4.5 μm. The Y dwarf classification rests on a color lower limit: the object is redder in Spitzer's ch1–ch2 color than any T dwarf, with ch1–ch2 > 2.81 mag. If the paper is right, SMDET-1 enlarges the incomplete census of the very coldest objects in the solar neighborhood and demonstrates that pixel-level machine learning can uncover moving objects in crowded fields that traditional catalog searches missed.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that SMDET-1 is a genuine, high–proper-motion (≈1.3 arcsec/yr) brown dwarf, detected at 4.5 μm by both WISE and Spitzer and absent from near-infrared JHK imaging, whose Spitzer color limit places it in the Y dwarf regime. Because Spitzer's 3.6 μm channel fails to detect it, the authors derive a 5σ limit of ch1 > 17.38 mag from a local fit to sources around the object, giving ch1 – ch2 > 2.81 mag. Applying published color–luminosity and color–temperature relations, this yields T_eff < 391 K, a photometric distance < 7.4 pc, and a phototype later than Y0.8. The object is therefore presented as a nearby Y dwarf candidate and as evidence that the coldest population o

What carries the argument

The argument turns on the conversion of a non-detection into a constraint: the Deep GLIMPSE catalog detects SMDET-1 only in the 4.5 μm (ch2) channel, and the authors translate the absence of a 3.6 μm (ch1) detection into a 5σ magnitude limit by fitting a second-order polynomial to the ch1 signal-to-noise versus magnitude trend of ~1,600 nearby catalog sources. That ch1 limit, combined with the measured ch2 flux, produces the color lower limit that anchors the temperature, distance, and phototype estimates. The discovery itself rests on the SMDET neural network, a recurrent convolutional architecture that scans sequences of time-resolved WISE coadds for faint, fast-moving sources.

Load-bearing premise

The core premise is that SMDET-1 has no real 3.6 μm emission, so the measured 3.4σ residual at its predicted position is treated as noise or imperfect subtraction of a bright neighbor rather than a faint detection; if that residual is real, the derived color, distance, and temperature all shift, though the Y dwarf classification would likely survive.

What would settle it

A detection of SMDET-1 at 3.6 μm with a point-source flux exceeding the adopted limit, or a J-band detection at J ≤ 21.16, would overturn the color lower limit that drives the Y dwarf classification. Conversely, if forced photometry at the predicted position yields a clean 5σ ch1 detection, the current distance and temperature limits would be replaced by values near 5.6 pc and ~349 K.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • SMDET-1, if confirmed, becomes one of the closest known brown dwarfs, with a photometric distance under 7.4 pc, joining the small set of Y dwarfs in the solar neighborhood.
  • The object's extreme ch1–ch2 color and J-band non-detection make it a strong target for JWST or large-telescope spectroscopy to measure its temperature and composition.
  • The successful recovery of a moving source in a crowded Galactic-plane field suggests that similar pixel-level deep-learning searches can find other overlooked nearby objects in archival WISE and Spitzer data.
  • A trigonometric parallax from high-resolution follow-up would convert the photometric distance into a precise measurement and test the Y dwarf interpretation.
  • If the sub-threshold ch1 flux is real rather than contamination, the object would be even closer (≈5.6 pc) and cooler (≈349 K), strengthening its status.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's property estimates inherit a systematic risk: the adopted ch1 depth is 0.42 mag shallower than the survey's quoted sensitivity, and a 3.4σ residual flux sits at the predicted position. A deeper 3.6 μm observation would either confirm a real detection (shrinking the distance to ~5.6 pc) or push the limiting color even redder.
  • SMDET-1's nondetection in early SPHEREx data is presented as consistent with expectations, but a dedicated stacking analysis as more SPHEREx passes accumulate could provide an independent 4–5 μm detection without waiting for a new telescope.
  • This discovery suggests the low-mass cutoff of star formation may be even closer than the current census implies, and that similarly cold objects are likely hidden in the same archival data where traditional point-source catalogs fail due to crowding and blending.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of SMDET-1, a high proper motion (~1.3"/yr) object identified through the SMDET pixel-level deep learning search on time-resolved unWISE coadds. The object is independently confirmed by a 2012 Spitzer/Deep GLIMPSE detection at 4.5 μm and by additional WISE detections spanning ~12.4 years. It is undetected in Spitzer ch1 and in near-infrared JHK imaging, yielding a Spitzer color limit ch1−ch2 > 2.81 mag. From this color limit the authors derive a photometric temperature limit T_eff < 391 K, a photometric distance limit d < 7.4 pc, and a Y dwarf phototype. The paper also presents early SPHEREx observations that are inconclusive. The central claim is that SMDET-1 is a newly discovered, very nearby Y dwarf candidate.

Significance. If the characterization holds, SMDET-1 is a valuable addition to the incomplete census of the coldest brown dwarfs within ~20 pc and demonstrates the utility of deep learning for discovering faint moving objects in crowded fields. The discovery layer is strong: the Spitzer ch2 detection at ~2'' resolution corroborates the WISE detections, the motion is consistent across multiple epochs, and the paper carefully distinguishes the 5σ ch1 limit from the sub-threshold forced-photometry residual. The authors also cross-check their temperature and color relations against multiple published polynomials, and they explicitly flag the possibility of metal-poor outliers. The main risk is that the physical limits (T_eff < 391 K, d < 7.4 pc) are derived from photometric calibrations at the red edge of the color–temperature and color–absolute magnitude relations, so the quantitative headline numbers are conditional on SMDET-1 being a normal solar-metallicity field object.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Fig. 3] The T_eff(ch1−ch2) polynomial is fitted to JWST-based effective temperatures of a small sample (the black points in Fig. 3) and then evaluated at ch1−ch2 = 2.81, at or beyond the reddest calibration points. The paper notes that metal-poor objects can be very large outliers (Faherty et al. 2025) but does not quantify how this affects the T_eff < 391 K claim. Since this limit is a headline result, the authors should either (a) quantify the systematic scatter/extrapolation uncertainty using all published objects with ch1−ch2 > 2.5, including known outliers, or (b) explicitly present T_eff < 391 K as a solar-metallicity, field-age photometric estimate and modify the abstract accordingly. As written, the abstract implies a robust physical upper limit.
  2. [§3.2, §4.2] The paper adopts the 5σ ch1 limit (ch1 > 17.38) over the forced-photometry residual (ch1 = 17.66 ± 0.38/0.28, 3.4σ). The three arguments given are reasonable, but the residual is not negligible. If real, it would change the color to ~3.09 mag, the photometric distance to ~5.6 pc, and T_eff to ~349 K. While §4.2 discusses this alternative, it is absent from the abstract and conclusion. I recommend that the abstract/conclusion state that the primary limits are based on the adopted 5σ non-detection and explicitly note the alternate sub-threshold interpretation, or that Table 1 include the forced-photometry values as a separate row.
  3. [§3.3, Table 1] The proper motion fit has a poor reduced chi-squared for μα (χ²_ν = 13.9), and the paper acknowledges that the formal uncertainties may be underestimated due to WISE blending. This matters because the predicted positions anchor the JHK non-detection limits (§3.4, §3.5) and the v_tan < 44.9 km/s limit (§4.1). The authors should add a systematic error floor to the WISE astrometric points (e.g., based on the fit scatter) and demonstrate that the NIR non-detections and v_tan limit are robust to the resulting enlarged positional uncertainty. Without this, the reader cannot assess how conservative the derived limits are.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§2.3] Use 'December 2012' instead of 'late-2012' or '2012 December' for consistency.
  2. [Table 1] The photometry header 'JM KO', 'HM KO', 'KM KO' appears to be a formatting artifact; it should read 'J (MKO)', 'H (MKO)', 'K (MKO)'.
  3. [§4.1] The reduced proper motion H_ch2 ≈ 20.1 mag is mentioned without a definition or equation; define it or cite the standard formula so the value is reproducible.
  4. [Figure 3] The fitted T_eff(ch1−ch2) polynomial is shown as a dotted line, but the coefficients and the number of calibration points are not given. Please provide the polynomial coefficients and the calibration sample size, ideally in a footnote or in the text.
  5. [§3.6] The term 'L VF' should be 'LVF' (linear variable filter) consistently throughout the section.
  6. [References] Several references are listed only as arXiv e-prints (e.g., Meisner et al. 2022, Caselden et al. 2026, Leggett 2026). If any have been accepted or published, please update to the journal reference. Also, the Meisner et al. 2022 entry lacks a DOI.
  7. [§3.1] The notation 'ch1' and 'ch2' is used throughout; ensure the first use explicitly defines the Spitzer/IRAC channel wavelengths (this appears in footnote 14, but might be worth stating in the main text as well, especially since the abstract uses [3.6] and [4.5]).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the discovery and characterization rest on external data and independent calibrations.

full rationale

I walked the full derivation chain from discovery to the headline claims. The moving-object discovery is anchored in external archival data: WISE/unWISE time-resolved coadds, the unTimely catalog, and Spitzer Deep GLIMPSE imaging, with the Spitzer ch2 detection independently resolving the source. The ch1 non-detection is converted into a magnitude limit using a second-order polynomial fit to ~1,600 Deep GLIMPSE field objects, an empirical sensitivity estimate that does not use SMDET-1 itself. The resulting color limit ch1-ch2 > 2.81 mag is then converted to T_eff and distance using external polynomial relations (Kirkpatrick et al. 2021, Beiler et al. 2024, Leggett 2026); the paper's own Teff polynomial is cross-checked against three independent Leggett relations, so the temperature limit is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The paper's self-citations (SMDET methodology, unTimely, Kirkpatrick et al. 2021) are methodological or external empirical calibrations, not load-bearing uniqueness arguments. The alternative interpretation of the sub-threshold 3.4-sigma ch1 forced-photometry residual is explored transparently and does not change the qualitative Y-dwarf conclusion. The stated concern about metal-poor outliers is a correctness risk, not a circularity. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's derived claims (Y phototype, T_eff < 391 K, d < 7.4 pc) are a chain of photometric limits passed through empirical calibrations. Two quantities are fitted within this paper (the ch1 depth and the T_eff–color polynomial); the rest are borrowed from prior literature (Kirkpatrick et al. 2021, Leggett 2026) and applied at the red edge of their calibrated ranges. The discovery itself does not depend on these calibrations — it depends on the astrometric association of four epochs — which is why the discovery layer is more robust than the characterization layer. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • 5σ ch1 depth at SMDET-1's position (second-order polynomial fit) = ch1 = 17.38 mag (Vega)
    Fitted in §3.1 to S/N versus ch1 magnitude for ~1,600 Deep GLIMPSE sources within 176''; the survey-wide quoted depth is 0.42 mag deeper. Sets the ch1−ch2 > 2.81 limit that drives distance, temperature, and phototype.
  • Quadratic coefficients of the T_eff(ch1−ch2) polynomial = not tabulated (green dashed line, Fig. 3)
    Fitted in §4.1 by the authors to JWST-based bolometric temperatures (Beiler et al. 2024) plus W0855 (Rowland et al. 2024), then used to derive T_eff < 391 K. Cross-checked against three independent Leggett (2026) relations.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption W2 and Spitzer ch2 magnitudes are essentially equal for cold brown dwarfs
    Invoked in §3.3 to compare unTimely W2 = 14.59/14.70 mag with the Deep GLIMPSE ch2 = 14.574 mag; justified by Fig. 15 of Kirkpatrick et al. (2021).
  • domain assumption The Deep GLIMPSE ch2-only source and the three WISE detections are the same object following linear motion with constant W2 flux
    This association is the content of the four-epoch astrometric fit in §3.3; a single Spitzer epoch at ~2'' resolution matches the trajectory inferred from heavily blended WISE detections.
  • domain assumption Published polynomial calibrations (M_ch2 versus ch1−ch2, SpT versus ch1−ch2; Kirkpatrick et al. 2021) remain valid at ch1−ch2 > 2.81 mag
    Used in §4.1 to convert the color limit to d < 7.4 pc and phototype > Y0.8. 2.81 mag is near the red edge of the calibration sample, and the paper itself notes metal-poor outliers can break temperature–color relations.
  • ad hoc to paper The 3.4σ residual ch1 flux at SMDET-1's predicted position is not a real point source
    §3.2 lists three reasons to adopt the 5σ ch1 limit over the forced-photometry residual; this is a modeling judgment underlying every derived quantity. If the residual is real, distance becomes 5.6 pc and T_eff ≈ 349 K — the Y dwarf classification survives but all numbers shift.
  • domain assumption SMDET-1 is not an extreme-metallicity or unusual-gravity outlier in the T_eff versus ch1−ch2 plane
    §4.1: 'recent studies have shown that metal-poor objects can be very large outliers relative to the general trend of brown dwarf temperature versus ch1−ch2 color'; no metallicity or gravity constraint exists for SMDET-1.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16345 in / 25913 out tokens · 227840 ms · 2026-08-04T01:31:23.897181+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SMDET-1: a Nearby Y Dwarf Candidate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KJSGJAK

@misc{pith2026260800046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SMDET-1: a Nearby Y Dwarf Candidate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KJSGJAK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00046}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present the discovery of SMDET-1, a red, fast-moving object ($\mu \approx 1.3$"/yr) identified in time-resolved unWISE coadds using a pixel-level deep learning methodology called SMDET. Despite being relatively bright at 4.5 microns compared to many other recent WISE-based brown dwarf discoveries ($m_{[4.5]} \approx 14.6$ mag Vega), SMDET-1 had remained overlooked due to its location in a very crowded Galactic plane field ($b \approx 2.25^{\circ}$) and contamination from brighter background objects. SMDET-1 is also serendipitously detected at 4.5 microns in late-2012 Spitzer Deep GLIMPSE survey imaging. SMDET-1 is undetected in UKIDSS and Palomar/WIRC near-infrared imaging, with the strongest constraint on its temperature ($T_{\rm eff}$ < 391 K) arising from its Deep GLIMPSE color limit of $m_{[3.6]} - m_{[4.5]} > 2.81$ mag, which also implies a very nearby photometric distance < 7.4 pc. The Spitzer color bound corresponds to a Y dwarf phototype. SMDET-1 illustrates the importance of continued searches for nearby brown dwarfs within archival datasets like WISE and Spitzer, as well as the potential of pixel-level deep learning to discover astronomical moving objects that challenge traditional data analysis approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00046 by Adam C. Schneider, Dan Caselden, Federico Marocco, Jacqueline K. Faherty, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, Jonathan Gagn\'e, Marc J. Kuchner, Sam Barber, Samuel A. Beiler, Sergio B. Fajardo-Acosta, Stanimir A. Metchev, The Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 Collaboration: Aaron M. Meisner, Thomas P. Bickle, Zafar Rustamkulov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: time-series unWISE and Spitzer cutouts with no template subtraction applied, showing SMDET-1’s northeast￾erly motion over ≈ 12 years. Each panel displays a two-color composite where λ ≈ 3.5 µm is the blue channel and λ ≈ 4.5 µm is the red channel. Main sequence stars appear blue-white, whereas a very cold brown dwarf or highly reddened background source will appear deep orange. SMDET-1 is resolved as … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows a close-up of the ch1 imaging data near SMDET-1 and illustrates our forced photometry procedure. We built a pixelized point spread function (PSF) model using ≈ 60 bright, nearby stars in the ch1 mosaic. We then subtracted the bright, central contaminant (green plus mark in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spitzer ch1-ch2 colors of Teff ≲ 1000 K brown dwarfs correlate strongly with their temperatures, with redder ch1-ch2 color generally indicating colder temperature. Black data points are JWST-based temperature measurements from bolometric luminosity (S. A. Beiler et al. 2024). Gray data points with large gray error bars are cases that lack JWST-based bolometric luminosities, and have uncertain photometric t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Early SPHEREx spectrophotometry at SMDET-1’s per sky pass locations, from the IRSA/SPHEREx Spectropho￾tometry Tool (black, blue). Spitzer photometry from Deep GLIMPSE is overplotted in red. A Teff = 400 K brown dwarf model spectrum ([m/H] = 0 dex, log g = 5.0, C/O = 0.55, log Kzz = 2.0) from the “LOWZ” model grid, scaled to match the Spitzer ch2 flux, is shown in green (A. M. Meisner et al. 2021; M. Line 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

65 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    K., Calissendorff, P., et al

    Albert, L., Leggett, S. K., Calissendorff, P., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adadf9 Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. C., Faherty, J. K., Schneider, A. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d25

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adadf9 2025

  2. [2]

    Barnard, E. E. 1916, AJ, 29, 181, doi: 10.1086/104156

    work page doi:10.1086/104156 1916

  3. [3]

    A., Cushing, M

    Beiler, S. A., Cushing, M. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6301

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6301 2024

  4. [4]

    J., Aboobaker, A

    Bock, J. J., Aboobaker, A. M., Adamo, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2be2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2be2 2026

  5. [5]

    D., Caselden, D., et al

    Brooks, H., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Caselden, D., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3a0a

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3a0a 2022

  6. [6]

    D., et al

    Brooks, H., Caselden, D., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad77d2

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad77d2 2024

  7. [7]

    J., Gonzales, E

    Burgasser, A. J., Gonzales, E. C., Beiler, S. A., et al. 2025, Science, 390, 697, doi: 10.1126/science.adu0401

    doi:10.1126/science.adu0401 2025

  8. [8]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc86d

    Calissendorff, P., De Furio, M., Meyer, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc86d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc86d 2023

  9. [9]

    2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Caselden, D., Colin, G., Lack, L., et al. 2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 235, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #235, 274.18

    2020

  10. [10]

    2018, WiseView: Visualizing motion and variability of faint WISE sources,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1806.004 http://ascl.net/1806.004

    Colin, G. 2018, WiseView: Visualizing motion and variability of faint WISE sources,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1806.004 http://ascl.net/1806.004

    2018

  11. [11]

    D., Lack, L., et al

    Caselden, D., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Lack, L., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 303, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae593c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae593c 2026

  12. [12]

    L., Meade, M

    Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., Meade, M. R., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 213, doi: 10.1086/597811 12

    doi:10.1086/597811 2009

  13. [13]

    C., Kirkpatrick, J

    Cushing, M. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/50 De Furio, M., Faherty, J. K., Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L63, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfee1 Dor´ e, O., Bock, J., Ashby, M., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.4872, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1412.4872 Euclid Collaboration, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.4872 2011

  14. [14]

    2025, Nature, 645, 62, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09369-1

    Faherty, J., Meisner, A., Burningham, B., et al. 2025, Nature, 645, 62, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09369-1

    doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09369-1 2025

  15. [15]

    K., Bardalez Gagliuffi, D

    Faherty, J. K., Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. C., Beichman, C. A., et al. 2021, Explaining the Diversity of Cold Worlds,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. #2124

    2021

  16. [16]

    K., Burningham, B., Gagn´ e, J., et al

    Faherty, J. K., Burningham, B., Gagn´ e, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 511, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07190-w

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07190-w 2024

  17. [17]

    G., Hora, J

    Fazio, G. G., Hora, J. L., Allen, L. E., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 10, doi: 10.1086/422843 Gagn´ e, J., Faherty, J. K., Ruiz Diaz, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.22012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.22012 Gagn´ e, J., Faherty, J. K., Ruiz Diaz, A., et al. 2026, The SPHEREx Photometry and Image Fitting Framework (SPIFF) Spectrophotometry Library, QR2...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.22012 2004

  18. [18]

    J., Theissen, C

    Hsu, C.-C., Burgasser, A. J., Theissen, C. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1c7d Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac1c7d 2021

  19. [19]

    Jones, E. M. 1972, ApJ, 173, 671, doi: 10.1086/151454

    work page doi:10.1086/151454 1972

  20. [20]

    D., Cushing, M

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Cushing, M. C., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/19

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/19 2011

  21. [21]

    D., Gelino, C

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Gelino, C. R., Cushing, M. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/156

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/156 2012

  22. [22]

    D., Metchev, S

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Metchev, S. A., Hillenbrand, L. A., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 108

    2019

  23. [23]

    D., Gelino, C

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Gelino, C. R., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd107

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd107 2021

  24. [24]

    D., Marocco, F., Gelino, C

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Marocco, F., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad24e2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad24e2 2024

  25. [25]

    2022, unTimely Catalog explorer: A search and visualization tool for the unTimely Catalog,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2211.005

    Kiwy, F. 2022, unTimely Catalog explorer: A search and visualization tool for the unTimely Catalog,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2211.005

    2022

  26. [26]

    M., Bock, J

    Korngut, P. M., Bock, J. J., Akeson, R., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10698, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. Lystrup, H. A. MacEwen, G. G

    2018

  27. [27]

    Batalha, N

    Fazio, N. Batalha, N. Siegler, & E. C. Tong, 106981U, doi: 10.1117/12.2312860

    doi:10.1117/12.2312860

  28. [28]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x

    arXiv 2007

  29. [29]

    Discovery of Cold Brown Dwarfs or Free-Floating Giant Planets Close to the Sun

    Leggett, S., Apai, D., Burgasser, A., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 95, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1903.04686

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.04686 2019

  30. [30]

    Leggett, S. K. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.24740, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.24740

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.24740 2026

  31. [31]

    K., Morley, C

    Leggett, S. K., Morley, C. V., Marley, M. S., & Saumon, D. 2015, ApJ, 799, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/37

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/37 2015

  32. [32]

    K., Phillips, M

    Leggett, S. K., Phillips, M. W., & Tremblin, P. 2025, ApJ, 991, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf21f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf21f 2025

  33. [33]

    K., & Tremblin, P

    Leggett, S. K., & Tremblin, P. 2023, ApJ, 959, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfdad

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfdad 2023

  34. [34]

    K., Tremblin, P., Esplin, T

    Leggett, S. K., Tremblin, P., Esplin, T. L., Luhman, K. L., & Morley, C. V. 2017, ApJ, 842, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6fb5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6fb5 2017

  35. [35]

    2008, in A Giant Step: from Milli- to Micro-arcsecond Astrometry, ed

    Lindegren, L., Babusiaux, C., Bailer-Jones, C., et al. 2008, in A Giant Step: from Milli- to Micro-arcsecond Astrometry, ed. W. J. Jin, I. Platais, & M. A. C

    2008

  36. [36]

    248, 217–223, doi: 10.1017/S1743921308019133

    Perryman, Vol. 248, 217–223, doi: 10.1017/S1743921308019133

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921308019133

  37. [37]

    2021, LOWZ model atmosphere spectra, V1 Harvard Dataverse, doi: 10.7910/DVN/SJRXUO

    Line, M. 2021, LOWZ model atmosphere spectra, V1 Harvard Dataverse, doi: 10.7910/DVN/SJRXUO

    work page doi:10.7910/dvn/sjrxuo 2021

  38. [38]

    W., Hoare, M

    Lucas, P. W., Hoare, M. G., Longmore, A., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 136, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13924.x

    arXiv 2008

  39. [39]

    Luhman, K. L. 2014, ApJL, 786, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/L18

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/l18 2014

  40. [40]

    C., Skrutskie, M., et al

    Mainzer, A., Cushing, M. C., Skrutskie, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 726, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/30

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/1/30 2011

  41. [41]

    K., Masiero, J

    Mainzer, A. K., Masiero, J. R., Abell, P. A., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 224, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad0468

    doi:10.3847/psj/ad0468 2023

  42. [42]

    2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Makovoz, D., & Khan, I. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 81

    2005

  43. [43]

    M., et al

    Marocco, F., Caselden, D., Meisner, A. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf0 2019

  44. [44]

    D., Smart, R

    Marocco, F., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Smart, R. L., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 284, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae5061

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae5061 2026

  45. [45]

    2019, unwise psf: PSF models for unWISE coadds,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1901.004 http://ascl.net/1901.004 13

    Meisner, A., & Schlafly, E. 2019, unwise psf: PSF models for unWISE coadds,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1901.004 http://ascl.net/1901.004 13

    2019

  46. [46]

    M., Caselden, D., Schlafly, E

    Meisner, A. M., Caselden, D., Schlafly, E. F., & Kiwy, F. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.14327. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14327

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    M., Lang, D., & Schlegel, D

    Meisner, A. M., Lang, D., & Schlegel, D. J. 2018, AJ, 156, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aacbcd

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aacbcd 2018

  48. [48]

    M., Leggett, S

    Meisner, A. M., Leggett, S. K., Logsdon, S. E., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdb68

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acdb68 2023

  49. [49]

    M., Faherty, J

    Meisner, A. M., Faherty, J. K., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba633

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba633 2020

  50. [50]

    M., Schneider, A

    Meisner, A. M., Schneider, A. C., Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac013c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac013c 2021

  51. [51]

    V., Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/172

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/172 2012

  52. [52]

    V., Marley, M

    Morley, C. V., Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/78

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/78 2014

  53. [53]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.07642, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.07642

    Paladini, R., Zucker, C., Benjamin, R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.07642, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.07642

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.07642 2023

  54. [54]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 028001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acac53 2023

  55. [55]

    M., Schneider, A

    Robbins, G., Meisner, A. M., Schneider, A. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0043

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0043 2023

  56. [56]

    J., Morley, C

    Rowland, M. J., Morley, C. V., Miles, B. E., et al. 2024, ApJL, 977, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9744

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9744 2024

  57. [57]

    Schlafly, E. F. 2021, crowdsource: Crowded field photometry pipeline,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2106.004 http://ascl.net/2106.004

    2021

  58. [58]

    F., Meisner, A

    Schlafly, E. F., Meisner, A. M., & Green, G. M. 2019, ApJS, 240, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aafbea

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aafbea 2019

  59. [59]

    F., Green, G

    Schlafly, E. F., Green, G. M., Lang, D., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa3e2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa3e2 2018

  60. [60]

    C., Burgasser, A

    Schneider, A. C., Burgasser, A. J., Gerasimov, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a40

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a40 2020

  61. [61]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757 SPHEREx Team

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757 SPHEREx Team. 2025, SPHEREx Quick Release Spectral Images - QR2, NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive, doi: 10.26131/IRSA652

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1503.03757 2015

  62. [62]

    W., Roellig, T

    Werner, M. W., Roellig, T. L., Low, F. J., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 1, doi: 10.1086/422992

    doi:10.1086/422992 2004

  63. [63]

    2011, Deep GLIMPSE: Exploring the Far Side of the Galaxy,, Spitzer Proposal ID #80074

    Whitney, B., Benjamin, R., Churchwell, E., et al. 2011, Deep GLIMPSE: Exploring the Far Side of the Galaxy,, Spitzer Proposal ID #80074

    2011

  64. [64]

    C., Eikenberry, S

    Wilson, J. C., Eikenberry, S. S., Henderson, C. P., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 451–458, doi: 10.1117/12.460336

    doi:10.1117/12.460336 2003

  65. [65]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 2010