Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

A planetary-mass candidate imaged in the Young Suns Exoplanet Survey

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports a candidate planetary-mass companion at 730 au from the young star 2M1006, whose motion matches the star's at the ~3σ level but whose bound nature cannot yet be confirmed because the host system's barycentre is unknown.

desk verdict Careful, honest wide-orbit candidate paper: the companion is real in H band and the astrometry is internally consistent, but the 3–5 M_J mass is conditional on an unproven age and an unsecured companionship link—still deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13295 v1 pith:A7W4JU3T submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.EP

Pengyu Liu , Matthew A. Kenworthy , Beth A. Biller , Alex Wallace , Tomas Stolker , Sebastiaan Haffert , Christian Ginski , Eric E. Mamajek
show 21 more authors
Alfred Castro-Ginard Tiffany Meshkat Mark J. Pecaut Maddalena Reggiani Jared R. Males Laird M. Close Olivier Guyon Isabella Doty Kyle Van Gorkom Alex Hedglen Maggie Kautz Jay Kueny Joshua Liberman Jialin Li Joseph D. Long Jennifer Lumbres Eden McEwen Logan Pearce Roswell R. Roberts IV Lauren Schatz Katie Twitchell
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords directimagingplanetary-masscompanionwide-orbitplanetcommonpropermotionScorpius-CentaurusassociationATMO2020evolutionarymodelbrowndwarfastrometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports the detection of a faint point source, H=22.04±0.13 mag, at a projected separation of 730±10 au from the young solar-mass star 2M1006, consistently seen in the H band over five epochs between 2018 and 2023. The source's motion across the sky matches the primary star's proper motion at roughly the 3σ level, but the host is itself a close visual binary with evidence for at least one more unresolved stellar component, so the system's barycentre is not known well enough to certify the candidate as bound. If it is a bound planet, the ATMO2020 evolutionary model and a 19–28 Myr age give a mass of 3–5 Jupiter masses, which would make it one of the coolest and widest directly imaged planets known. Such an object would sit in a regime where core-accretion formation timescales are severely strained, so confirmation would add a concrete challenge to theories of gas giant formation. The paper concludes that spectroscopy of the candidate and long-term monitoring of the central stars are required to settle its nature.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing measurement is differential astrometry: PSF fitting of the faint source relative to the primary star in six epochs of SPHERE/IRDIS and MagAO-X images, which rejects a static background source by more than 3σ and yields proper motion consistent with the host. The companion hypothesis is converted into a mass with the ATMO2020 evolutionary model, which turns the candidate's H-band luminosity and assumed age into 3–5 Jupiter masses, while the odds of a background star versus a bound planet are assessed with a likelihood ratio that returns P(bg)/P(pl)=3–240 depending on the assumed mass ratio of the central binary. The unresolved complication is the barycentre: because the central star is probably a triple system, the reference frame for the common proper motion test is not yet known.

What would settle it

Measure the candidate's parallax or take a medium-resolution near-infrared spectrum: a bound companion at 136 pc would show a parallax of about 7.3 mas and planetary absorption features, while a background M dwarf would show a parallax near 0.2 mas, consistent with roughly 4.8 kpc, and stellar spectral bands. Alternatively, once the central binary orbit and the suspected third component fix the system's barycentre, re-test the candidate's motion relative to that barycentre; a deviation greater than about 3σ from comoving motion would rule out a bound companion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is the detection of a candidate companion with H=22.04±0.13 mag at a projected separation of 730±10 au from 2M1006, detected in the H band at signal-to-noise ratios above 5 and showing proper motion comparable to that of the primary star. On the paper's own terms this is a candidate, not a confirmed planet: the host is resolved as a G8–K0 primary plus an M dwarf, with strong circumstantial evidence for a third stellar component, and the unknown barycentre of that central system prevents a conventional common proper motion confirmation. If the candidate is bound, the paper estimates a mass of 3–5 Jupiter masses from the ATMO2020 evolutionary model, making it a low-mass, cool companion similar to 51 Eri b and AF Lep b, and one of the widest-orbit planets imaged to date.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that the candidate is a 3-5 Jupiter-mass planet rests on the assumption that it sits at the same distance (136 pc) and same age (19-28 Myr) as the primary star, with the ATMO2020 model converting its H-band brightness into mass; if the source is a background star or a free-floating object, that mass estimate is void.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If confirmed, the candidate would be one of the coolest directly imaged planets, comparable to 51 Eri b and AF Lep b.
  • At 730 au it would join the small set of confirmed planets beyond 300 au, a regime where core-accretion timescales are problematic and where formation by gravitational instability, disk scattering, or capture of free-floating planets is usually invoked.
  • The system would become an unusual laboratory: a young Sun-like star with a close binary, a suspected third component, and a wide planetary-mass candidate whose orbit would need to be solved against that multiple-star background.
  • The candidate's faintness means only JWST-class spectroscopy can measure its atmosphere and decide between a clear-sky planet, a dusty brown dwarf, and a background M dwarf.
  • The measured J2-J3 colour of 1.02±0.51 mag is too uncertain to discriminate between these possibilities, so deeper narrow-band photometry would be a cheaper next step.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If confirmed, the candidate would add a data point in a largely unmeasured regime: planet occurrence beyond 300 au. Combining this detection with other direct-imaging surveys could begin to constrain whether the wide-orbit population is overabundant relative to core-accretion predictions.
  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit is that a single deep observation in adjacent narrow-band filters could distinguish a clear-atmosphere planet from a dusty brown dwarf more cheaply than a full spectrum, leveraging the predicted H2-H3 and J2-J3 colour differences.
  • If the candidate turns out to be free-floating rather than bound, its measured proper motion is still interesting: measuring its parallax could place it in a nearby moving group and give a mass estimate independent of the host system.
  • The suspected third star in the central system could be confirmed by high-cadence radial velocities of the primary; if the large H-alpha offset between the two visible stars is real, the wide candidate's companionship must be tested against a dynamically complex three-body reference frame.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports the detection of a candidate planetary-mass companion at a projected separation of 730±10 au from the young star 2M1006, based on six epochs of SPHERE and MagAO-X imaging between 2018 and 2024. The candidate is detected in the H band at S/N>5 in three epochs, with marginal detections in J2/J3 and non-detections in K bands. The relative astrometry is consistent with the primary's proper motion within roughly 1–2σ, but the primary is itself a likely triple system with an unknown barycentre, so the companionship cannot be confirmed. A Bayesian analysis in Sect. 5.1 gives P(bg)/P(pl)=3–240, preferring a background or free-floating interpretation. The paper estimates an age of 19–28 Myr for the primary and, if the candidate is a companion, a mass of 3–5 M_J and a separation of 730±10 au. The paper concludes with recommendations for future spectroscopic and astrometric follow-up.

Significance. The paper is a careful discovery paper for a candidate that, if confirmed, would be one of the widest-orbit planetary-mass companions known, with implications for gas giant formation. The analysis is thorough: it includes a detailed astrometric error budget, injection tests for the photometry and radial velocity measurements, a Bayesian comparison of background and planet scenarios, and an explicit statement of the limitations arising from the unknown barycentre of the central stellar system. The candidate status is clearly labelled, and the mass estimate is explicitly conditional on the assumption that the candidate is at the same distance and age as the primary. The paper is transparent about the statistical and systematic uncertainties, which makes it a useful contribution even though companionship is not established. The stress-test concern about the unsecured astrometric link is acknowledged directly in Sect. 4.2 and is not a fatal flaw; the paper does not overclaim confirmation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sect. 6] The abstract states that 'The planetary-mass candidate shows a significant proper motion comparable to that of the primary star,' and Sect. 6 states that it 'shares a common proper motion with the primary star.' These statements are in tension with the paper's own Bayesian analysis in Sect. 5.1, which yields P(bg)/P(pl)=3–240, and with Sect. 4.2, which states that companionship cannot be confirmed because the barycentre is unknown. The proper-motion consistency is not significant evidence of companionship; it is merely consistent within the uncertainties. Please revise the abstract and conclusion to reflect the statistical result, for example by stating that the candidate's proper motion is consistent with that of the primary within the uncertainties, but that a background or free-floating origin is currently preferred by a factor of 3–240.
  2. [Sects. 3.6 and 4.3] The mass estimate of 3–5 M_J presented in Sect. 4.3 is conditional on the adopted age of 19–28 Myr from Sect. 3.6. However, the age is not well constrained: the BAFFLES lithium age has a 95% confidence interval of 3–396 Myr (Sect. 3.6), the star is likely not a Sco-Cen member (Sect. 5.2), and the SED-derived luminosity may be biased by the suspected third stellar component (Sect. 3.5). Please provide the mass estimate for a wider range of ages (e.g., 10, 50, and 100 Myr) or explicitly state how the inferred mass would change, so that readers can assess the robustness of the planetary-mass interpretation.
  3. [Sect. 4.2] The astrometric evidence for common proper motion rests on only three epochs, two of which are nearly one year apart, so the parallax of the candidate is unconstrained (Fig. 10). This degeneracy means that the derived proper motion of the candidate is poorly determined. The text states that the positions 'match within 1σ,' but the relative motion between 2018 and 2023 has a magnitude of 20±14 mas, which is only marginally consistent with zero. Please add a quantitative statement of the significance of the common proper motion that explicitly accounts for the parallax uncertainty and the unknown barycentre of the central stars.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 2.2] The first sentence says 'The six-epoch observations were taken with the MagAO-X instrument,' but the MagAO-X data constitute only the final epoch. Please rephrase, e.g., 'The sixth-epoch observation was taken with the MagAO-X instrument.'
  2. [Sect. 3.5, item 3] The text reads 'The radius of the primary star from the SED fitting is too large if it has the same age as the primary star.' This should be 'The radius of the fainter star is too large if it has the same age as the primary star,' based on the preceding discussion.
  3. [Sect. 5.1] There is a typo: 'The colous of the candidate are compatible' should be 'The colours of the candidate are compatible.'
  4. [Sect. 5.1] The sentence 'If it is a free-floating object, it might be a planetary-mass object, a brown dwarf or a distant background star' is internally inconsistent, because a distant background star is not a free-floating object. Please rephrase to separate the free-floating and background hypotheses.
  5. [Fig. 9] The red arrow indicating the candidate's possible CMD position would be clearer if the blue and red colour limits were explicitly labelled on the plot, since the text refers to a 'blue limit' and a 'red limit.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Only mild circularity: the candidate's free-floating proper motion is fit using star A's proper motion, so the claimed agreement with A is partly built in; the paper flags this and does not use it to confirm companionship.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1 (Bayesian background/planet comparison following Eq. 4; see also Section 4.2 astrometric analysis)]
    "The relative measured projected velocity between the candidate and star A (from 2018 to 2023) is 4.8±3.8 mas yr−1 ... The proper motion calculation of the candidate - assuming it is a free-floating object - relies on the proper motion of the barycentre, which is approximated by the proper motion of the primary star measured by Gaia."

    The candidate's 'free-floating' proper motion is not an independent absolute measurement: it is constructed from star A's Gaia proper motion plus the small measured relative drift between A and the candidate (4.8±3.8 mas yr−1). The paper then states that 'the primary star is within the 2σ range of the candidate' and uses this agreement as evidence against a background origin. That agreement is arithmetically forced by the construction: fitting PM_candidate ≈ PM_A + (small relative drift) guarantees PM_candidate ≈ PM_A at the ~1–2σ level. The comparison with background stars likewise inherits A's PM anomaly rather than independently measuring the candidate's motion.

full rationale

The central detection is an observational result: H=22.04±0.13 mag and a 730±10 au projected separation from aperture/PSF photometry and 2D-Gaussian astrometry, with injection tests for the uncertainties. The age (19–28 Myr) and distance (136 pc) come from Gaia parallax, SED fitting, and BT-Settl isochrones, which are external and not fitted to the candidate. The conditional 3–5 M_J mass estimate uses the external ATMO2020 evolutionary model under stated assumptions and is explicitly conditional on companionship. The paper does not invoke a load-bearing self-citation chain; citations to earlier YSES work are survey context, and the ATMO/BT-Settl/Besançon/orbitize references are external benchmarks. The one mild circularity is the proper-motion comparison described above: the candidate's free-floating PM is fit using star A's PM, so the subsequent agreement with A is partly by construction. However, the paper acknowledges this limitation, explicitly states that companionship cannot be confirmed because the barycentre is unknown, and reports P(bg)/P(pl)=3–240. Thus the flagged step is acknowledged and not load-bearing for the final conditional claim, warranting a low score rather than a charge of substantive circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not invent new physical entities. Its free parameters are predominantly external occurrence rates and model choices, and the key assumption is the distance and age equality between the candidate and the primary. The mass estimate is conditioned on the candidate being bound, which is not established. The analysis is transparent about these dependencies.

free parameters (4)
  • Mass ratio of fainter star B to primary A = 0 to 1 (scanned)
    The paper computes the probability ratio P(bg)/P(pl) as a function of mass ratio, varying from 0 to 1. This is not fitted but scanned, and the results depend on it.
  • Planet occurrence rate for wide orbits = 5.7% (from Vigan et al. 2021)
    Used as a lower limit for the occurrence rate between 5 and 760 au. This is an external value, not fitted in this paper, but it is an assumption that affects the probability ratio.
  • Mass power-law index = -1.31 (from Cumming et al. 2008)
    Used to calculate P(p), the prior probability of a planet. This is from RV-detected planets within 3 au, and the paper acknowledges this may not apply to wide-orbit planets.
  • Separation power-law index = -0.61 (from Nielsen et al. 2017)
    Used to calculate P(rho|p). This is an external assumption that affects the probability ratio.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The candidate is at the same distance as the primary star (136 pc) when deriving absolute magnitude and mass.
    Section 4.3: 'Assuming the same distance of the primary star (136 pc), the candidate has an absolute magnitude of 16.38±0.13.' This is the key assumption for the mass estimate, and it is not established.
  • domain assumption The ATMO2020 evolutionary model with chemical equilibrium is valid for estimating the mass of a young planetary-mass object.
    Section 4.3: 'Using the ATMO2020 evolutionary model, we estimated a mass of 3-5 M_J under the assumption of chemical equilibrium.' This is an external model, but the assumption of chemical equilibrium (vs. non-equilibrium) affects the mass.
  • domain assumption The astrometric calibration (pixel scale, true north, distortion) is correct to the quoted uncertainties.
    Table 2 lists the error budget. The systematic uncertainties, including an 'arbitrary' 1 mas for coronagraph centring, are assumptions that affect the significance of the common proper motion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A planetary-mass candidate imaged in the Young Suns Exoplanet Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7W4JU3T

@misc{pith2026250513295,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A planetary-mass candidate imaged in the Young Suns Exoplanet Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7W4JU3T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13295}
}
abstract

Directly imaged exoplanets in wide orbits challenge current gas giant formation theories. They need to form quickly and acquire enough material before the disk dissipates, which cannot be accommodated by in-situ formation by core accretion. We search for wide separation ($>$ 100 au) planetary-mass companions with the Young Suns Exoplanet Survey (YSES). Here, we present a planetary-mass candidate companion discovered in the survey. We conducted follow-up observations of the candidate system after the first epoch observations and obtained six epochs of observations for this system between 2018 and 2024, and integral field spectroscopy of the stellar component. We report the detection of a candidate companion with H=22.04 $\pm$ 0.13 mag at a projected separation of 730 $\pm$ 10 au away from the primary star. High angular resolution imaging observations of the central star show it is a visual binary. Acceleration data, orbital fitting, spectral energy distribution fitting and radial velocity differences all suggest that there is at least one more unresolved low-mass stellar companion in this system. The planetary-mass candidate shows a significant proper motion comparable to that of the primary star. We estimate an age of 19-28 Myr for the primary star. We cannot confirm the companionship of the candidate due to the unknown barycentre of the stars. Long-term imaging and radial velocity monitoring of the central stars, along with spectroscopy of the candidate companion, are key to resolving the nature of this system. If confirmed, the candidate companion would have a mass of 3-5 Mj estimated with the ATMO evolutionary model. It would be another cold low-mass planet imaged similar to 51 Eri b and AF Lep b. Its extremely wide separation from the host star would challenge the formation theory of gas giant exoplanets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13295 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Full image of this system of the first epoch in the H band. Left panel: central stars. The fainter component is in the southeast direction of the primary star on 2018-11-15. Middle panel: stacked coronagraphic image centred on the primary star. There are ten sources in the field of view in total. The planetary-mass candidate is the faint source between the two bright background stars in the southwest. Right panel: z… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posterior distributions of the orbital parameters by fitting the measured relative positions with orbitize. two stars is calculated by: vesc = r 2G(M1 + M2) r (2) The total mass derived from orbital fitting is 2.1 ± 0.5 M⊙ and the closest projected separation of the two stars is 32 ± 1 mas which is 4.2 ± 0.1 au for the parallax of 7.32 ± 0.07 mas. Putting them into Eq. 2, the upper limit of the escape velocity is 29… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 100 orbits drawn from the posterior distributions of the binary fitted with orbitize. 10 18 10 16 10 14 10 12 F (W m 2 µ m 1 ) Teff = 5196 K, logg = 3.9, R = 1.1 R Teff = 3458 K, logg = 4.5, R = 1.0 R Teff, 1 = 5196 K, Teff, 2 = 3458 K, R1 = 1.1 R , R2 = 1.0 R Gaia 2MASS WISE 0 1 T 5 10 15 20 25 Wavelength (µm) 5 0 5 F ( ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simultaneous SED fitting of the primary star and fainter star to the unresolved broadband photometric measurements of Gaia, 2MASS and WISE with species. The black solid line is the combined best-fitted spectrum of the two stars. The black dashed line is the best-fitted…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MagAO-X/IFU data of the binary. Left panel: IFU images of the binary stacked along the wavelength channel. The image is not rotated to place North up. Middle panel: star A’s spectrum and the first three principal components of star B’s spectra. The grey area shows the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Age estimation of 2M1006. Left panel: age estimation by Li depletion using BAFFLES (Stanford-Moore et al. 2020). Right panel: age estimation by combining the luminosity and Teff of the primary star from SED fitting with the isochrones and tracks of BT-Settl evolutionar…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relative astrometry of the candidate in RA and Dec offsets. Left panel: relative astrometry of the candidate to the primary star (mass ratio = 0). Right panel: relative astrometry of the candidate to the barycentre if the fainter star and primary star are an equal mass…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Proper motion of the candidate assuming it is free-floating when the barycentre is on the primary star. The blue populations are the stars from 0 to 50 kpc within 2σ magnitude of the candidate gener￾ated by the Besançon galaxy model. The 1 and 2σ contours are shown by…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Probability ratio of the candidate being a free-floating object to a bound planet of the central stars as a function of the mass ratio of the fainter star to the brighter star. The red horizontal line is where the probability ratio = 1. tive measured projected velocit…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Allard , F., Homeier , D., Freytag , B., Schaffenberger , W., & Rajpurohit , A. S. 2013, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 24, 128

    2013

  4. [4]

    & Quanz , S

    Amara , A. & Quanz , S. P. 2012, , 427, 948

    2012

  5. [5]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  7. [7]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147

    2021

  8. [8]

    2015, , 577, A42

    Baraffe , I., Homeier , D., Allard , F., & Chabrier , G. 2015, , 577, A42

    2015

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    2020, , 496, 1922

    Belokurov , V., Penoyre , Z., Oh , S., et al. 2020, , 496, 1922

    2020

  2. [10]

    Best , W. M. J., Liu , M. C., Magnier , E. A., & Dupuy , T. J. 2020, , 159, 257

    2020

  3. [11]

    Best , W. M. J., Magnier , E. A., Liu , M. C., et al. 2018, , 234, 1

    2018

  4. [12]

    L., Vigan , A., Mouillet , D., et al

    Beuzit , J. L., Vigan , A., Mouillet , D., et al. 2019, , 631, A155

    2019

  5. [13]

    A., Grandjean , A., Messina , S., et al

    Biller , B. A., Grandjean , A., Messina , S., et al. 2022, , 658, A145

    2022

  6. [14]

    J., Angelo , I., et al

    Blunt , S., Wang , J. J., Angelo , I., et al. 2020, , 159, 89

    2020

  7. [15]

    J., Ginski , C., Kenworthy , M

    Bohn , A. J., Ginski , C., Kenworthy , M. A., et al. 2021, , 648, A73

    2021

  8. [16]

    J., Kenworthy , M

    Bohn , A. J., Kenworthy , M. A., Ginski , C., et al. 2019, , 624, A87

    2019

  9. [17]

    J., Kenworthy , M

    Bohn , A. J., Kenworthy , M. A., Ginski , C., et al. 2020 a , , 492, 431

    2020

  10. [18]

    J., Kenworthy , M

    Bohn , A. J., Kenworthy , M. A., Ginski , C., et al. 2020 b , , 898, L16

    2020

  11. [19]

    2022, , 513, 5588

    Bonavita , M., Fontanive , C., Gratton , R., et al. 2022, , 513, 5588

    2022

  12. [20]

    Boss , A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836

    1997

  13. [21]

    P., Liu , M

    Bowler , B. P., Liu , M. C., Mawet , D., et al. 2017, , 153, 18

    2017

  14. [22]

    M., et al

    Brandner , W., Zinnecker , H., Alcal \'a , J. M., et al. 2000, , 120, 950

    2000

  15. [23]

    R., et al

    Castro-Ginard , A., Penoyre , Z., Casey , A. R., et al. 2024, , 688, A1

    2024

  16. [24]

    M., et al

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

    2017

  17. [25]

    M., Zuckerman , B., et al

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

    2005

  18. [26]

    M., Males, J

    Close, L. M., Males, J. R., Durney, O., et al. 2018, in Adaptive Optics Systems VI, Vol. 10703, SPIE, 1227--1236

    2018

  19. [27]

    P., Marcy , G

    Cumming , A., Butler , R. P., Marcy , G. W., et al. 2008, , 120, 531

    2008

  20. [28]

    A., Robin , A

    Czekaj , M. A., Robin , A. C., Figueras , F., Luri , X., & Haywood , M. 2014, , 564, A102

    2014

  21. [29]

    J., Nielsen , E

    De Rosa , R. J., Nielsen , E. L., Wahhaj , Z., et al. 2023, , 672, A94

    2023

  22. [30]

    T., Hoogerwerf , R., de Bruijne , J

    de Zeeuw , P. T., Hoogerwerf , R., de Bruijne , J. H. J., Brown , A. G. A., & Blaauw , A. 1999, , 117, 354

    1999

  23. [31]

    A., Wilson , E

    Dickson-Vandervelde , D. A., Wilson , E. C., & Kastner , J. H. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 25

    2020

  24. [32]

    E., Veras , D., Ford , E

    Dodson-Robinson , S. E., Veras , D., Ford , E. B., & Beichman , C. A. 2009, , 707, 79

    2009

  25. [33]

    2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Dohlen , K., Langlois , M., Saisse , M., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali , 70143L

    2008

  26. [34]

    Dupuy , T. J. & Kraus , A. L. 2013, Science, 341, 1492

    2013

  27. [35]

    Dupuy , T. J. & Liu , M. C. 2012, , 201, 19

    2012

  28. [36]

    P., & Bridges , M

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., & Bridges , M. 2009, , 398, 1601

    2009

  29. [37]

    2023, , 268, 4

    Fetherolf , T., Pepper , J., Simpson , E., et al. 2023, , 268, 4

    2023

  30. [38]

    2018, , 618, A138

    Flasseur , O., Denis , L., Thi \'e baut , \'E ., & Langlois , M. 2018, , 618, A138

    2018

  31. [39]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  32. [40]

    P., Zhou , Y., et al

    Franson , K., Bowler , B. P., Zhou , Y., et al. 2023, , 950, L19

    2023

  33. [41]

    N., Theissen , C

    Gagn \'e , J., Allers , K. N., Theissen , C. A., et al. 2018, , 854, L27

    2018

  34. [42]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021, , 649, A1

    2021

  35. [43]

    2004, , 42, 549

    Goldreich , P., Lithwick , Y., & Sari , R. 2004, , 42, 549

    2004

  36. [44]

    Y., Males, J

    Haffert, S. Y., Males, J. R., Close, L. M., et al. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02720

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  38. [46]

    V., et al

    H g , E., Fabricius , C., Makarov , V. V., et al. 2000, , 355, L27

    2000

  39. [47]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  40. [48]

    2021, , 600, 231

    Janson , M., Gratton , R., Rodet , L., et al. 2021, , 600, 231

    2021

  41. [49]

    2019, , 623, A72

    Kervella , P., Arenou , F., Mignard , F., & Th \'e venin , F. 2019, , 623, A72

    2019

  42. [50]

    2012, , 62, 67

    Kiraga , M. 2012, , 62, 67

    2012

  43. [51]

    & Johansen , A

    Lambrechts , M. & Johansen , A. 2012, , 544, A32

    2012

  44. [52]

    Lange, J. U. 2023, , 525, 3181

    2023

  45. [53]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Langlois , M., Vigan , A., Dohlen , K., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay , I. S. McLean , & H. Takami , 91479P

    2014

  46. [54]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    2018

  47. [55]

    C., Dupuy , T

    Liu , M. C., Dupuy , T. J., & Allers , K. N. 2016, , 833, 96

    2016

  48. [56]

    D., Pearce , L., Haffert , S

    Long , J. D., Pearce , L., Haffert , S. Y., et al. 2025, , 169, 36

    2025

  49. [57]

    Luhman , K. L. 2022, , 163, 24

    2022

  50. [58]

    R., Barman , T., et al

    Macintosh , B., Graham , J. R., Barman , T., et al. 2015, Science, 350, 64

    2015

  51. [59]

    2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 035004

    Maire , A.-L., Langlois , M., Delorme , P., et al. 2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 035004

    2021

  52. [60]

    R., Close, L

    Males, J. R., Close, L. M., Haffert, S., et al. 2022, in Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, Vol. 12185, SPIE, 61--70

    2022

  53. [61]

    2006, , 641, 556

    Marois , C., Lafreni \`e re , D., Doyon , R., Macintosh , B., & Nadeau , D. 2006, , 641, 556

    2006

  54. [62]

    2023, , 672, A93

    Mesa , D., Gratton , R., Kervella , P., et al. 2023, , 672, A93

    2023

  55. [63]

    A., Metchev , S., Luhman , K

    Miles-P \'a ez , P. A., Metchev , S., Luhman , K. L., Marengo , M., & Hulsebus , A. 2017, , 154, 262

    2017

  56. [64]

    2014, , 787, 5

    Naud , M.-E., Artigau , \'E ., Malo , L., et al. 2014, , 787, 5

    2014

  57. [65]

    L., Rosa , R

    Nielsen , E. L., Rosa , R. J. D., Rameau , J., et al. 2017, , 154, 218

    2017

  58. [66]

    Pecaut , M. J. & Mamajek , E. E. 2013, , 208, 9

    2013

  59. [67]

    Pecaut , M. J. & Mamajek , E. E. 2016, , 461, 794

    2016

  60. [68]

    Perets , H. B. & Kouwenhoven , M. B. N. 2012, , 750, 83

    2012

  61. [69]

    Perryman , M. A. C., Lindegren , L., Kovalevsky , J., et al. 1997, , 323, L49

    1997

  62. [70]

    W., Tremblin , P., Baraffe , I., et al

    Phillips , M. W., Tremblin , P., Baraffe , I., et al. 2020, , 637, A38

    2020

  63. [71]

    B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al

    Pollack , J. B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al. 1996, , 124, 62

    1996

  64. [72]

    & Mamajek , E

    Preibisch , T. & Mamajek , E. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II, ed. B. Reipurth , Vol. 5 (CUP), 235

    2008

  65. [73]

    E., Alves , J., et al

    Ratzenb \"o ck , S., Gro schedl , J. E., Alves , J., et al. 2023, , 678, A71

    2023

  66. [74]

    W., et al

    Riello , M., De Angeli , F., Evans , D. W., et al. 2021, , 649, A3

    2021

  67. [75]

    2017, , 603, A57

    Samland , M., Molli \`e re , P., Bonnefoy , M., et al. 2017, , 603, A57

    2017

  68. [76]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163

    2006

  69. [77]

    2012, , 755, L28

    Soummer , R., Pueyo , L., & Larkin , J. 2012, , 755, L28

    2012

  70. [78]

    A., Nielsen , E

    Stanford-Moore , S. A., Nielsen , E. L., De Rosa , R. J., Macintosh , B., & Czekala , I. 2020, , 898, 27

    2020

  71. [79]

    P., Todorov , K

    Stolker , T., Quanz , S. P., Todorov , K. O., et al. 2020, , 635, A182

    2020

  72. [80]

    Torres , C. A. O., Quast , G. R., da Silva , L., et al. 2006, , 460, 695

    2006

  73. [81]

    2021, , 651, A72

    Vigan , A., Fontanive , C., Meyer , M., et al. 2021, , 651, A72

    2021

  74. [82]

    2010, , 407, 71

    Vigan , A., Moutou , C., Langlois , M., et al. 2010, , 407, 71

    2010

  75. [83]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  76. [84]

    J., Crundall , T

    Z erjal , M., Ireland , M. J., Crundall , T. D., Krumholz , M. R., & Rains , A. D. 2023, , 519, 3992

    2023

  77. [85]

    L., Casey , A

    Wallace , A. L., Casey , A. R., Brown , A. G. A., & Castro-Ginard , A. 2025, , 536, 2485

    2025

  78. [86]

    2000, , 143, 9

    Wenger , M., Ochsenbein , F., Egret , D., et al. 2000, , 143, 9

    2000

  79. [87]

    2017, , 153, 166

    Zacharias , N., Finch , C., & Frouard , J. 2017, , 153, 166

    2017

  80. [88]

    C., Claytor , Z

    Zhang , Z., Liu , M. C., Claytor , Z. R., et al. 2021, , 916, L11

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.