Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 116 references

WIde Separation Planets In Time (WISPIT): A Gap-clearing Planet in a Multi-ringed Disk around the Young Solar-type Star WISPIT 2

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read WISPIT 2b is a directly imaged, gap-clearing ~4.9-Jupiter-mass proto-planet co-moving with its young solar-type host star.

desk verdict A genuinely new discovery that deserves referee time, but the planet classification hinges on an age systematic the authors should quantify. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19053 v1 pith:RLQZN2TP submitted 2025-08-26 astro-ph.EP

Richelle F. van Capelleveen , Christian Ginski , Matthew A. Kenworthy , Jake Byrne , Chloe Lawlor , Dan McLachlan , Eric E. Mamajek , Tomas Stolker
show 12 more authors
Myriam Benisty Alexander J. Bohn Laird M. Close Carsten Dominik Sebastiaan Haffert Rico Landman Jie Ma Ignas Snellen Ryo Tazaki Nienke van der Marel Lukas Welzel Yapeng Zhang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetformationcircumstellardisksdirectimagingpolarimetryprotoplanetsplanet-diskinteractionmulti-ringedscatteredlight
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 sets out to prove that a point source seen inside the widest gap of the multi-ringed disk around the young solar-type star WISPIT 2 is a genuine young planet, not a background star or a disk artifact. Using four epochs of high-contrast near-infrared imaging, it resolves the disk for the first time—out to roughly 380 au, with at least four concentric rings—and shows that the companion, WISPIT 2b, moves with the star and on an orbit consistent with Keplerian motion inside the gap. Its H- and Ks-band brightness, interpreted with young-object evolutionary models, gives a mass of about 4.9 Jupiter masses, and the measured gap width agrees with hydrodynamic predictions for a planet of that mass opening the gap. If correct, this is the first unambiguous planet detected in a multi-ringed disk, making WISPIT 2 a direct laboratory for how embedded planets carve their natal disks and a calibration point for indirect planet detections in other ringed disks.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on four coupled pieces: multi-epoch, multi-mode high-contrast imaging that detects the same point source in several independent reductions; astrometry showing the source is neither stationary nor background, with the orbit fitted under a disk-aligned, co-planar assumption; H- and Ks-band photometry placed on a color-magnitude diagram against AMES-COND and AMES-DUSTY, two grids of young-object evolutionary models; and the gap-width-versus-planet-mass scaling relations of Kanagawa et al. (2016) and Zhang et al. (2018) that tie the observed 59-au gap to the inferred mass. The planet WISPIT 2b itself, sitting in the cleanest gap, is the object that binds these pieces together.

What would settle it

A dynamical mass for WISPIT 2b from high-precision astrometry (for example VLTI/GRAVITY) or radial velocities over several years, combined with a spectroscopic age for the host star: if the mass exceeds the deuterium-burning limit (~13 Jupiter masses) or the orbit is not coplanar with the disk, the planetary and gap-opening interpretations fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that WISPIT 2b is a directly imaged young proto-planet embedded in the widest gap of the disk and co-moving with its host star. The companion is recovered in multiple independent reductions—RDI in H-band and cADI, PCA-ADI, and iRDI in Ks-band—and its positions are inconsistent with a stationary background object. The two cleanest epochs yield an orbital fit with a most probable semi-major axis of about 57 au, placing the planet inside the gap. H- and Ks-band photometry matches a 4.9+0.9/-0.6 Jupiter-mass object on the AMES-COND and AMES-DUSTY young-object tracks at the adopted stellar age of 5.1 Myr. The paper further argues that this mass is consistent with the observed

Load-bearing premise

The planetary classification rests on the host star being about 5 Myr old and on treating the two-epoch astrometric motion as Keplerian; if the star is actually about 19 Myr old, the same photometry would imply a mass above the deuterium-burning limit, and if the 2024 epoch is excluded the orbital constraint is thin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If WISPIT 2b is indeed a ~4.9-MJup planet in the gap, the system becomes the first case where a ring gap is unambiguously associated with an embedded planet, linking disk substructure to ongoing planet formation.
  • The gap-width analysis yields a disk viscosity constraint: the photometric mass matches a viscous alpha of ~1e-2 under the Kanagawa et al. (2016) model or ~1e-4 under the Zhang et al. (2018) model, offering a way to measure disk viscosity from an embedded planet.
  • The independent H-alpha detection indicates ongoing accretion and possibly a circumplanetary disk, making WISPIT 2b comparable to the PDS 70 planets and opening the door to detailed accretion studies.
  • The system supports in-situ formation of wide-separation gas giants by core accretion, without rapid migration, since the planet sits in a cleared and seemingly unperturbed gap.
  • Future ALMA and JWST observations of gas kinematics, dust structure, and atmospheric composition can calibrate indirect planet-detection techniques used on other multi-ringed disks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the host-star age is pinned down spectroscopically and the companion's dynamical mass is measured, WISPIT 2b would provide a rare test of whether young-object evolutionary tracks over- or under-predict masses near the deuterium-burning boundary—a test the paper does not perform.
  • The tentative detection of the inner disk's bottom side through the gap implies the gap is nearly devoid of small dust; a high-resolution ALMA map would test whether dust filtration at the planet's gap is as efficient as the scattered-light morphology suggests.
  • The morphological similarity to HD 97048—nearly identical inclination and ring structure but a lower-mass host—hints that wide-orbit giant planets may form around low-mass T Tauri stars as readily as around Herbig stars, an occurrence-rate comparison the paper leaves implicit.
  • If the planet's orbit can be constrained to be exactly coplanar with the disk, WISPIT 2b could serve as a clean calibration target for kinematic planet-detection methods, because its gap is empty enough to give a direct view of the planet's influence on the gas.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents VLT/SPHERE observations of the young solar-type star WISPIT 2, resolving a ~380 au scattered-light disk with four rings and a wide gap, and directly detecting a point source (WISPIT 2b) inside that gap. The authors argue that the source is co-moving with the star, that its H and Ks photometry imply a ~4.9 MJup mass at an adopted stellar age of 5.1 Myr, that its astrometry is consistent with a Keplerian orbit in the disk plane, and that the width of the disk gap is consistent with the planet's mass according to gap-opening models. The abstract concludes that WISPIT 2b is the first unambiguous planet detection in a multi-ringed disk and a laboratory for planet-disk interaction.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is a significant step: it would add a rare, directly imaged embedded protoplanet in a multi-ringed disk around a young solar analog, complementing PDS 70 and providing a direct test of gap-opening theory. The observational work is substantial: four SPHERE epochs, careful RDI/PDI/ADI reductions, a multi-epoch background-source rejection, and an independent comparison to hydrodynamical gap-width models. The photometric interpretation is internally consistent, and the authors are appropriately cautious in several places, including flagging that the mass uncertainty may be underestimated and that spectral characterization is needed. The main weakness is that the 'unambiguous planet' and 'Keplerian orbital motion' claims are not yet fully supported by the presented analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Table 4; Appendix A.3] The planetary classification rests on converting M_Ks = 11.95 mag and M_H = 12.8 mag into a mass with AMES-COND/DUSTY at an adopted age of 5.1^{+2.4}_{-1.3} Myr. This age sits at the lower end of the EAGLES v2.0 group age (11.1^{+5.9}_{-8.1} Myr) and below the older literature group ages (~20-35 Myr) listed in Appendix A.2. At fixed absolute magnitude, the inferred mass increases with adopted age, and the quoted 0.6-0.9 MJup uncertainties do not include this age systematic. The paper should explicitly compute the companion mass at 11, 17, 20, and 35 Myr and show that it remains below the deuterium-burning limit. Without that calculation, the abstract's 'first unambiguous planet' and §8's 'consistent with a planetary-mass object' are not secured; the authors' own caution that 'the reported uncertainty may be underestimated' supports this concern.
  2. [§5.1, Table 3, Figure 8] After excluding the 2024 epoch, the 'orbital motion consistent with Keplerian motion' claim rests on only two epochs (2023-10-19 and 2025-04-26). Two astrometric points cannot demonstrate Keplerian motion; any two points are consistent with some Keplerian orbit. The posterior peak at a~57 au is obtained with inclination/node fixed to the disk orientation and with a post-fit down-selection to a<=70 au. Please (i) include the 2024 epoch in the orbit fit or quantitatively justify its exclusion for the orbit determination, (ii) report the sensitivity of the semi-major axis posterior to the 70 au cut and to the disk-orientation assumptions, and (iii) temper the abstract/conclusion language from 'demonstrate' to 'is compatible with' a Keplerian orbit. The background rejection itself is more robust because it uses all three epochs against the stationary-source track, but that is a separate stat
  3. [§6, Eqs. (2)-(3), Figure 10] The gap-opening consistency claim is weaker than stated. With alpha spanning 10^-4 to 10^-2, the Kanagawa et al. model gives 0.5-5.3 MJup and the Zhang et al. model gives 4-16 MJup; the photometric 4.9 MJup overlaps only a portion of the combined model range, and the scattered-light gap width is not obviously the same quantity as the gas/dust gap width in the Zhang et al. model. The statement in §8 that the mass is 'consistent with the modeled planet mass required to open such a gap' should be qualified by the strong alpha and model dependence, or the range of allowed masses should be propagated into the comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 7] The column header 'Mass M_Jup' appears to be a typo; the listed masses (0.93-1.14) are clearly in solar masses. Please correct to M_sun.
  2. [§3.2] The pixel scales are quoted as '12.246 ± 0.009 mas yr^-1' and '12.266 ± 0.009 mas yr^-1'; the units should be mas pixel^-1, not mas yr^-1.
  3. [§5.1, Table 3] The 2024 H-band astrometry is used in Figure 7 for background rejection but excluded from the orbital fit. The text explains the exclusion, but the abstract and §8 should avoid implying that all three epochs contribute to the 'Keplerian motion' statement. A sentence distinguishing 'background rejection' from 'orbit fit' would prevent confusion.
  4. [Appendix G] The composite image shifts the 2023 H-band planet position to the 2025 Ks-band position for display. This is stated in the appendix, but the main-text Figure 1 caption should also note that the planet position shown is for 2025-04-26 and that the H-band emission was shifted.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The orbital 'in-the-gap' result is partly inherited from the fit's priors and post-hoc down-selection; the direct detection, co-moving rejection, and photometric mass are independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1 (orbital fit) and Section 8 (conclusions); see also Abstract]
    "As the planet is located in the disk gap, and the disk appears very symmetric and unperturbed in scattered light, we assume that the planet does not cross the disk. ... After the fits were concluded we then down-selected only solutions with a maximum semi-major axis of 70 au, which are then fully contained within the disk gap."

    The reported result that the most probable semi-major axis is ~57 au and 'falls in the inner region of the gap' is not an independent orbital measurement: the prior already assumes the planet does not cross the disk, the inclination is fixed to the disk plane, and the posterior is down-selected to a <= 70 au, i.e., fully contained within the gap. Because the 2024 epoch was excluded, only two epochs define a short arc, so the likelihood cannot determine a; the posterior is dominated by these priors and the truncation. Thus the phrase 'orbital motion consistent with Keplerian motion in the observed disk gap' is in part a restatement of the input constraints. The co-moving/background rejection, the direct imaging position in the gap, and the photometric mass remain independent.

full rationale

The paper's central discovery—direct detection of a point source, proper-motion rejection of a background object, and a photometric mass from AMES-COND/DUSTY tracks—does not reduce to the circular step identified. The orbit fit uses the observed gap as a prior and then presents the resulting semi-major axis as if it independently places the planet in the gap; this is a mild but real self-definitional element. The H-alpha confirmation is cited from a submitted companion letter with overlapping authorship (Close et al., submitted), but it is described as 'additionally strengthened' and 'further confirms,' so it is not load-bearing. The paper also explicitly cautions that the mass uncertainty may be underestimated because of the adopted age (Section 5.2), which is a limitation rather than a circularity: the stellar age and the evolutionary-model mass tracks are independent inputs. Overall, one supporting 'prediction' (orbit inside the gap) is partly inherited from priors, while the main detection and characterization are self-contained, giving a score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the usual observational calibrations (Gaia astrometry, SPHERE instrument calibration, standard evolutionary models), plus a few assumptions specific to this paper: the orbit is assumed coplanar with the disk and forced to lie inside the gap via priors; the mass conversion assumes a stellar age of 5.1 Myr; and the H-alpha confirmation is taken from an unpublished companion letter. No new physical entities are introduced; WISPIT 2b is an observed source, not a postulated entity.

free parameters (6)
  • Stellar age = 5.1 +2.4/-1.3 Myr
    From SED fit plus BHAC15 isochrones (Appendix A.3); used with AMES tracks to convert H/Ks photometry into planet mass. Group age estimates (EAGLES v2.0) allow 11.1+5.9/-8.1 Myr, so the inferred mass can shift.
  • Stellar mass = 1.08 +0.06/-0.17 Msun
    Used as the Gaussian prior (1.0 +/- 0.1 Msun) in the orbitize! orbital fit (Section 5.1); affects the Keplerian interpretation and semi-major axis posterior.
  • Extinction AV = 0.136 +/- 0.087 mag
    Adopted from interstellar reddening interpolation (Appendix A.1) and applied to the SED and photometry; impacts stellar luminosity/age and planet magnitudes.
  • Adopted H-band contrast = 9.8 +0.4/-0.3 mag (2023); 2024 value 10.6 not adopted
    Choice of 2023 epoch over 2024 for the H magnitude used in the mass estimate (Section 5.2); the 2024 measurement is consistent within uncertainties but notably fainter, introducing a systematic selection.
  • Orbital prior bounds and gap cut = a prior 40-100 au, posterior cut at 70 au; mode ~57 au
    The orbit fit uses a log-uniform prior of 40 to 100 au, then down-selects solutions with a<70 au to be 'fully contained within the disk gap' (Section 5.1). This injects the gap hypothesis into the orbital solution.
  • Disk flaring power law = h0 = 24.0 au at r0 = 163.6 au, alpha = 1.77 (H), 2.22 (Ks)
    Fit to ring heights (Section 4, Equation 1) to characterize the disk; not central to the planet claim but used in the disk morphology analysis.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The planet's orbit is co-planar and aligned with the disk; inclination fixed at 135 deg and ascending node at 0 deg.
    Section 5.1 states 'we further assume that the planet's orbit is co-planar and aligned with the disk' to make the orbital fit tractable with two epochs.
  • ad hoc to paper The planet does not cross the disk and remains inside the observed gap; orbital solutions with semi-major axis above 70 au are removed after the fit.
    Section 5.1 down-selects solutions to those 'fully contained within the disk gap,' conditioning the posterior on the gap interpretation.
  • domain assumption AMES-COND and AMES-DUSTY isochrones at ~5.1 Myr describe the young planet's photosphere, and BHAC15/PARSEC/SPOTS tracks describe the host star.
    Section 5.2 uses these models to convert photometry and age into the 4.9 MJup mass; the host-star age is derived from the same class of evolutionary models in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallax and proper motion of WISPIT 2 define the reference frame for rejecting a stationary background source.
    Section 5.1 constructs the predicted background track from the Gaia DR3 distance; the background rejection assumes this track is an adequate null hypothesis over 1.5 years.
  • domain assumption Scattered-light rings and gaps in the Q_phi images trace the disk surface density structure and mid-plane geometry.
    Section 4 interprets the ring/gap morphology and the 59-au gap width as the disk structure that the planet opens; standard assumption in scattered-light disk studies.
  • domain assumption The H-alpha detection reported in Close et al. (submitted) confirms accretion onto WISPIT 2b.
    Cited in Sections 1 and 8 as strengthening the planetary interpretation; the companion paper is not part of this preprint and cannot be checked here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WIde Separation Planets In Time (WISPIT): A Gap-clearing Planet in a Multi-ringed Disk around the Young Solar-type Star WISPIT 2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RLQZN2TP

@misc{pith2026250819053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WIde Separation Planets In Time (WISPIT): A Gap-clearing Planet in a Multi-ringed Disk around the Young Solar-type Star WISPIT 2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RLQZN2TP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19053}
}
abstract

In the past decades several thousand exoplanet systems have been discovered around evolved, main-sequence stars, revealing a wide diversity in their architectures. To understand how the planet formation process can lead to vastly different outcomes in system architecture we have to study the starting conditions of planet formation within the disks around young stars. In this study we are presenting high resolution direct imaging observations with VLT/SPHERE of the young ($\sim$5 Myr), nearby ($\sim$133 pc), solar-analog designated as WISPIT 2($=$ TYC~5709-354-1). These observations were taken as part of our survey program that explores the formation and orbital evolution of wide-separation gas giants. WISPIT 2 was observed in four independent epochs using polarized light and total intensity observations. They reveal for the first time an extended (380 au) disk in scattered light with a multi-ringed sub-structure. We directly detect a young proto-planet WISPIT 2b, embedded in a disk gap and show that it is co-moving with its host star. Multiple SPHERE epochs demonstrate that it shows orbital motion consistent with Keplerian motion in the observed disk gap. Our $H$ and $K_s$-band photometric data are consistent with thermal emission from a young planet. By comparison with planet evolutionary models, we find a mass of the planet of $4.9^{+0.9}_{-0.6}$ Jupiter masses. This mass is also consistent with the width of the observed disk gap, retrieved from hydrodynamic models. WISPIT 2b is the first unambiguous planet detection in a multi-ringed disk, making the WISPIT 2 system the ideal laboratory to study planet-disk interaction and subsequent evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19053 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SPHERE/IRDIS multi-band image of the WISPIT 2 system. The H-band Qϕ image was added as blue channel and the median combination of H-band and Ks-band Qϕ images was added as green channel. The red channel is a combination of Ks-band Qϕ image and Ks-band cADI image in which we masked all but the gap containing the thermal emission from WISPIT 2b. For more details see Appendix G. One such question concerns the formation… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SED of WISPIT 2. Photometric data from various sources are shown with colored markers. The blue curve represents the best-fit BT-Settle-CIFIST model (χ 2 = 7.94), with the low resolution (high opacity) version overlayed on the high resolution (low opacity) model. does not account for possible extinction from the disk itself, we expect such effects to be minimal due to the disk’s ∼ 45◦ inclination (see Section 4) and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SPHERE/IRDIS observations of the WISPIT 2 system. The gray, hashed disk in the image center indicates the size of the coronagraphic mask. The differential imaging method and observed waveband for each image are indicated in the top left corner. Blue-hued images reduced with the ADI or RDI (50 principal components) methods are showing total intensity, sensitive to disk scattered light and thermal emission from embedd… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: All detections of the embedded planet WISPIT 2b in the various observation epochs and filters. We indicate the embedded planet position with a white, dotted circle. The coronagraph position is indicated with a gray, hashed mask. For the 2025 Ks-band data we show that t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Polarized light Qϕ image of the WISPIT 2 system taken in the H-band. We indicate the various sub-structures that we are detecting within the scattered light signal of the planet-forming disk. Clusters of bad pixels from the detector are seen near the lower edge of the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left and Middle: Geometric fitting of the disk in both H-band and Ks-band images. Right: The aspect ratio (h/r) vs. radius (au) of both bands. For comparison we include the literature measurements of Ginski et al. (2016); Avenhaus et al. (2018); Ginski, C. et al. (2024…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Proper motion analysis of WISPIT 2b. Each epoch is represented by a unique marker shape: diamond (2023), circle (2024) and cross (2025). The colored version of each marker denotes the measured position of the companion. The unfilled (black outline, white center) versio…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top panel: Predicted orbits of the planet (known astrometry denoted by red star) overlaid on the H-band polarized scattered light image. Bottom panel: Extracted orbital elements and total system mass. inner region of the gap between ring 3 and the deepest part of gap 3…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Color-magnitude diagram of WISPIT 2b, with field brown dwarfs of various spectral types and confirmed planetary companions. Teal and cyan tracks show 5.1 Myr AMES-COND and AMES-DUSTY isochrones respectively. WISPIT 2b is marked in purple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: illustrates the increasing trend of the mass ratio q, with gap width for various disk viscosity param￾eters α (Shakura & Sunyaev 1976). Using the gap width estimated from the Gaussian fitting of the dust rings (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Full sample of all disk observations in near￾infrared scattered light for which multiple rings were detected. We show the location and width of the widest gap in each system as given in the literature. When no specific gap widths were given, we used the difference bet…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distance versus reddening E(B −V ) for stars within 1◦ , with distances based on Gaia DR3 parallaxes and reddening from Paunzen et al. (2024). 3 https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/DUST/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Results from fitting the age of the cluster using the EW(Li) and Teff values listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Stellar evolution isochrones for various masses (solid lines) and ages (dashed lines). The models are, from left to right, BHAC15, PARSEC 1.2, and SPOTS (f = 0.17). WISPIT 2 is indicated with a blue marker. While this provides an upper limit (EAGLES) or rough constrai…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: H-band Stokes Q and U and derived Qϕ and Uϕ images of the WISPIT 2 disk. We note that polarized light observations are typically not sensitive to planet thermal emission, which is predominantly unpolarized. Consequently the planet WISPIT 2b is not visible in these ima…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Ks-band Stokes Q and U and derived Qϕ and Uϕ images of the WISPIT 2 disk. We note that polarized light observations are typically not sensitive to planet thermal emission, which is predominantly unpolarized. Consequently the planet WISPIT 2b is not visible in these im…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Zoom-in on the innermost disk ring (ring 3). We show polarized light Qϕ images in the gray color scheme in the left and middle panel and the total intensity cADI Ks-band image in the blue color scheme in the right panel. The middle panel shows the Qϕ image after image…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Panel (a): Definition of the PA, measured counterclockwise from North to East. In this convention, the PA is measured from North to the major axis and contains the forward scattering side, corresponding to a PA of 357° in this diagram. Panel (b): Image of the disk de-…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: SPHERE/IRDIS multi-band image of the WISPIT 2 system. The H-band Qϕ image was added as blue channel and the median combination of H-band and Ks-band Qϕ images was added as the green channel. The red channel is a combination of Ks-band Qϕ image and Ks-band cADI image i…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H., Alexander, D

    Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R., Tamanai, A., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, 357, doi: 10.1086/321547

    doi:10.1086/321547 2001

  2. [2]

    Rajpurohit, A. S. 2013, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 24, 128, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.6559 30 van Capelleveen et al

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.6559 2013

  3. [4]

    P., Garufi, A., et al

    Avenhaus, H., Quanz, S. P., Garufi, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab846

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab846 2018

  4. [5]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bae, J., Isella, A., Zhu, Z., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 423, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.13314

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.13314 2023

  5. [6]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9705

    Bae, J., Zhu, Z., & Hartmann, L. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9705

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9705 2017

  6. [7]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  7. [8]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  8. [9]

    2008, A&A, 492, 277, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810395

    Bayo, A., Rodrigo, C., Barrado Y Navascu´ es, D., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 277, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810395

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810395 2008

Show all 116 references
  1. [10]

    2021, ApJL, 916, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    Benisty, M., Bae, J., Facchini, S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 916, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    2021 doi

  2. [11]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Benisty, M., Dominik, C., Follette, K., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 605, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09991

    2023 doi arXiv

  3. [12]

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

    Beuzit, J. L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935251

    2019 doi

  4. [13]

    2011, Ap&SS, 335, 161, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0581-x

    Bianchi, L., Herald, J., Efremova, B., et al. 2011, Ap&SS, 335, 161, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0581-x

    2011 doi

  5. [14]

    L., De Rosa, R

    Blunt, S., Nielsen, E. L., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6930

    2017 doi

  6. [15]

    J., Angelo, I., et al

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

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    J., Kenworthy, M

    Bohn, A. J., Kenworthy, M. A., Ginski, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834523

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    J., Ginski, C., Kenworthy, M

    Bohn, A. J., Ginski, C., Kenworthy, M. A., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140508

    2021 doi

  9. [18]

    Boss, A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836, doi: 10.1126/science.276.5320.1836

    1997

  10. [19]

    1989, A&A, 211, 99

    Bouvier, J., & Bertout, C. 1989, A&A, 211, 99

    1989

  11. [20]

    P., Zhou, Y., Biddle, L

    Bowler, B. P., Zhou, Y., Biddle, L. I., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 258, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb6a1

    2025 doi

  12. [21]

    2016, Photutils: Photometry tools

    Bradley, L., Sipocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2016, Photutils: Photometry tools. http://ascl.net/1609.011

    2016

  13. [22]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  14. [23]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 464, doi: 10.1086/309513

    Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. 2000, ApJ, 542, 464, doi: 10.1086/309513

    2000 doi

  15. [24]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  16. [25]

    2019, ApJL, 877, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab212b

    Christiaens, V., Cantalloube, F., Casassus, S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 877, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab212b

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    M., Males, J

    Close, L. M., Males, J. R., Li, J., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8648

    2025 doi

  18. [27]

    2024, A&A, 681, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347109

    Columba, G., Rigliaco, E., Gratton, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347109

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 877, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1b42

    Currie, T., Marois, C., Cieza, L., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 877, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1b42

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 751, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01634-x

    Currie, T., Lawson, K., Schneider, G., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 751, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01634-x

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources. (Infrared Science Archive)

    2003

  22. [31]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2012, Explanatory Supplement to the WISE All-Sky Data Release Products, Explanatory Supplement to the WISE All-Sky Data Release Products

    2012

  23. [32]

    I., & Fabrycky, D

    Dawson, R. I., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2010, ApJ, 722, 937, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/937 de Boer, J., Salter, G., Benisty, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629267 de Boer, J., Langlois, M., van Holstein, R. G., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A63, doi: 10.1051/0...

    2010 doi

  24. [33]

    2024, A&A, 688, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348555

    Derkink, A., Ginski, C., Pinilla, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348555

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    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, doi: 10.1117/12.789786

    2008 doi

  26. [35]

    J., Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., Allers, K. N., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aacbc2

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    1999, A&A, 349, 236

    Epchtein, N., Deul, E., Derriere, S., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 236

    1999

  28. [37]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 4257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3420

    Fiorellino, E., Elia, D., Andr´ e, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3420

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293 WISPIT 2 31

    1999 doi

  30. [39]

    B., Rameau, J., Dong, R., et al

    Follette, K. B., Rameau, J., Dong, R., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 264, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6d85 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2017 doi

  31. [40]

    M., Barstow, J

    Gapp, C., Evans-Soma, T. M., Barstow, J. K., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 341, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9c6e

    2025 doi

  32. [41]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03624, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03624

    George, J., Dominik, C., & Ginski, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.03624, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03624

    2025 doi arXiv

  33. [42]

    2016, A&A, 595, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629265

    Ginski, C., Stolker, T., Pinilla, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629265

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    2021, ApJL, 908, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf57

    Ginski, C., Facchini, S., Huang, J., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf57

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    2024, A&A, 685, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244005

    Ginski, C., Garufi, A., Benisty, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244005

    2024 doi

  36. [45]

    A., et al

    Goffo, E., Gandolfi, D., Egger, J. A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace0c7

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    A., Devine, D., Woodgate, B., et al

    Grady, C. A., Devine, D., Woodgate, B., et al. 2000, ApJ, 544, 895, doi: 10.1086/317222

    2000 doi

  38. [47]

    2019, A&A, 623, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834760

    Gratton, R., Ligi, R., Sissa, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834760

    2019 doi

  39. [48]

    M., Schlafly, E

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1008

    2018 doi

  40. [49]

    Y., Bohn, A

    Haffert, S. Y., Bohn, A. J., de Boer, J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5

    2019 doi

  41. [50]

    J., et al

    Hammond, I., Christiaens, V., Price, D. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad027

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    Hoch, K. K. W., Rowland, M., Petrus, S., et al. 2025, Nature, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09174-w Høg, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V. V., et al. 2000, A&A, 363, 385

    2025 doi

  43. [52]

    Hom, E. F. Y., Marchis, F., Lee, T. K., et al. 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 24, 1580, doi: 10.1364/JOSAA.24.001580

    2007 doi

  44. [53]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348662

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    S., Babler, B

    Indebetouw, R., Mathis, J. S., Babler, B. L., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, 931, doi: 10.1086/426679

    2005 doi

  46. [55]

    2021, Nature, 600, 231, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04124-8

    Janson, M., Gratton, R., Rodet, L., et al. 2021, Nature, 600, 231, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04124-8

    2021 doi

  47. [56]

    D., Jackson, R

    Jeffries, R. D., Jackson, R. J., Wright, N. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 802, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1293

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    2022, A&A, 668, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244402

    Juillard, S., Christiaens, V., & Absil, O. 2022, A&A, 668, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244402

    2022 doi

  49. [58]

    D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., et al

    Kanagawa, K. D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., et al. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 68, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw037

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    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

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    Kerr, R. M. P., Rizzuto, A. C., Kraus, A. L., & Offner, S. S. R. 2021, ApJ, 917, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0251

    2021 doi

  52. [61]

    B., Orosz, J

    Kostov, V. B., Orosz, J. A., Feinstein, A. D., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8a48

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    2019, AJ, 158, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab339a

    Kounkel, M., & Covey, K. 2019, AJ, 158, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab339a

    2019 doi

  54. [63]

    1995, MNRAS, 277, 1491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1491

    Kroupa, P. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1491

    1995 doi

  55. [64]

    R., Potter, D., & Parise, B

    Kuhn, J. R., Potter, D., & Parise, B. 2001, ApJL, 553, L189, doi: 10.1086/320686 Lafreni` ere, D., Marois, C., Doyon, R., & Barman, T. 2009, ApJL, 694, L148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/L148

    2001 doi

  56. [65]

    M., Gratadour, D., Chauvin, G., et al

    Lagrange, A. M., Gratadour, D., Chauvin, G., et al. 2009, A&A, 493, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811325

    2009 doi

  57. [66]

    F., Flaccomio, E., Messina, S., et al

    Lanza, A. F., Flaccomio, E., Messina, S., et al. 2016, ˚A, 592, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628382

    2016 doi

  58. [67]

    M., Kulkarni, A

    Long, M., Romanova, M. M., Kulkarni, A. K., & Donati, J.-F. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 1061, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18193.x

    2011

  59. [68]

    J., & Madhusudhan, N

    MacDonald, R. J., & Madhusudhan, N. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx804

    2017 doi

  60. [69]

    MacKay, D. J. C. 2003, Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms (Copyright Cambridge University Press)

    2003

  61. [70]

    1985, ApJ, 295, 402, doi: 10.1086/163385

    Magnani, L., Blitz, L., & Mundy, L. 1985, ApJ, 295, 402, doi: 10.1086/163385

    1985 doi

  62. [71]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Maire, A.-L., Langlois, M., Dohlen, K., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 990834, doi: 10.1117/12.2233013

    2016 doi

  63. [72]

    2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 035004, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.3.035004

    Maire, A.-L., Langlois, M., Delorme, P., et al. 2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 035004, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.3.035004

    2021 doi

  64. [73]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 556, doi: 10.1086/500401

    Nadeau, D. 2006, ApJ, 641, 556, doi: 10.1086/500401

    2006 doi

  65. [74]

    2019, A&A, 632, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936764

    Mesa, D., Keppler, M., Cantalloube, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936764

    2019 doi

  66. [75]

    M., et al

    Milli, J., Mouillet, D., Lagrange, A. M., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219687

    2012 doi

  67. [76]

    D., Harries, T

    Monnier, J. D., Harries, T. J., Aarnio, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6248

    2017 doi

  68. [77]

    D., Harries, T

    Monnier, J. D., Harries, T. J., Bae, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe87 M¨ uller, A., Keppler, M., Henning, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833584

    2019 doi

  69. [78]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2006, A guide to NumPy, Vol. 1 (Trelgol Publishing USA)

    2006

  70. [79]

    2006, A&A, 453, 1129–1140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054449

    Paardekooper, S.-J., & Mellema, G. 2006, A&A, 453, 1129–1140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054449

    2006 doi

  71. [80]

    J., Min, K

    Park, S. J., Min, K. W., Seon, K. I., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/10 32 van Capelleveen et al

    2012 doi

  72. [81]

    2024, A&A, 689, A270, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347768

    Paunzen, E., Netopil, M., Priˇ segen, M., & Faltov´ a, N. 2024, A&A, 689, A270, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347768

    2024 doi

  73. [82]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 419, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0852-6

    Pinte, C., van der Plas, G., M´ enard, F., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 419, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0852-6

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

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

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    1996

  75. [84]

    2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 150, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ace88e

    Prato, L., & Simon, M. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 150, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ace88e

    2023 doi

  76. [85]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acadd6

    Qin, S., Zhong, J., Tang, T., & Chen, L. 2023, ApJS, 265, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acadd6

    2023 doi

  77. [86]

    P., Avenhaus, H., Buenzli, E., et al

    Quanz, S. P., Avenhaus, H., Buenzli, E., et al. 2013, ApJL, 766, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/766/1/L2

    2013 doi

  78. [87]

    2019, AJ, 157, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafee2

    Ruane, G., Ngo, H., Mawet, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafee2

    2019 doi

  79. [88]

    K., Mukherjee, S., et al

    Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 659, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05677-y

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    W., Wang, J

    Sanghi, A., Xuan, J. W., Wang, J. J., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad769f

    2024 doi

  81. [90]

    F., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., Schlegel, D. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1175, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1175

    2010 doi

  82. [91]

    F., Green, G., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Green, G., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/29

    2014 doi

  83. [92]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  84. [93]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1976, MNRAS, 175, 613, doi: 10.1093/mnras/175.3.613

    1976 doi

  85. [94]

    Thorsett, S. E. 2003, Science, 301, 193, doi: 10.1126/science.1086326

    2003 doi

  86. [95]

    A., & Terrile, R

    Smith, B. A., & Terrile, R. J. 1984, Science, 226, 1421, doi: 10.1126/science.226.4681.1421

    1984

  87. [96]

    Somers, G., Cao, L., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2020, ApJ, 891, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab722e

    2020 doi

  88. [97]

    2012, ApJL, 755, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L28

    Soummer, R., Pueyo, L., & Larkin, J. 2012, ApJL, 755, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L28

    2012 doi

  89. [98]

    M., & Ginski, C

    Stapper, L. M., & Ginski, C. 2022, A&A, 668, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142820

    2022 doi

  90. [99]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    2019 doi

  91. [100]

    J., Quanz, S

    Stolker, T., Bonse, M. J., Quanz, S. P., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834136

    2019 doi

  92. [101]

    D., Cugno, G., et al

    Stolker, T., Marleau, G. D., Cugno, G., et al. 2020a, A&A, 644, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038878

    doi

  93. [102]

    P., Todorov, K

    Stolker, T., Quanz, S. P., Todorov, K. O., et al. 2020b, A&A, 635, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937159

    doi

  94. [103]

    2018, ApJL, 860, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac6d7

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, ApJL, 860, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac6d7

    2018 doi

  95. [104]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 984, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc43b

    Teague, R., Benisty, M., Facchini, S., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 984, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc43b

    2025 doi

  96. [105]

    Torres, C. A. O., Quast, G. R., da Silva, L., et al. 2006, A&A, 460, 695, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065602 Valeg ˚ ard, P. G., Ginski, C., Derkink, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347452 van Boekel, R., Henning, T., Menu, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 132...

    2006 doi

  97. [106]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 ˇZerjal, M., Rains, A. D., Ireland, M. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 938, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab513

    2020 doi

  98. [107]

    2021, A&A, 648, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038794

    Wahhaj, Z., Milli, J., Romero, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038794

    2021 doi

  99. [108]

    2024, ˚A, 687, A257, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349018

    Wahhaj, Z., Benisty, M., Ginski, C., et al. 2024, ˚A, 687, A257, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349018

    2024 doi

  100. [109]

    J., Vigan, A., Lacour, S., et al

    Wang, J. J., Vigan, A., Lacour, S., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abdb2d

    2021 doi

  101. [110]

    L., Henden, A

    Watson, C. L., Henden, A. A., & Price, A. 2006, Society for Astronomical Sciences Annual Symposium, 25, 47

    2006

  102. [111]

    D., & Jackson, R

    Weaver, G., Jeffries, R. D., & Jackson, R. J. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2014, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2133

    2024 doi

  103. [112]

    2022, A&A, 666, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243379

    Xie, Chen, Choquet, Elodie, Vigan, Arthur, et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243379

    2022 doi

  104. [113]

    Zeeuw, P. T. 2018, A&A, 620, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834150

    2018 doi

  105. [114]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., Huang, J., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    2018 doi

  106. [115]

    Zhang, Y., Snellen, I. A. G., Bohn, A. J., et al. 2021a, Nature, 595, 370, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03616-x

    doi

  107. [116]

    2024, AJ, 168, 246, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7ea9

    Zhang, Y., Gonz´ alez Picos, D., de Regt, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 246, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7ea9

    2024 doi

  108. [117]

    C., Claytor, Z

    Zhang, Z., Liu, M. C., Claytor, Z. R., et al. 2021b, ApJL, 916, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1123

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.