Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 106 references

Beta Pic b, a young super-Jupiter, rotates once every 9.00 ± 0.13 hours, and its spin appears aligned with its star, disk, and orbit.

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

2026-08-02 06:07 UTC pith:RYHSCZSL

load-bearing objection A credible first detection of rotational modulation in a close-in imaged exoplanet, with the paper's own caveat quietly contradicting its core-accretion headline. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13133 v2 pith:RYHSCZSL submitted 2026-07-14 astro-ph.EP

Photometric Variability and Rotation of Beta Pictoris b from JWST NIRCam Coronagraphic Imaging

Yifan Zhou , Beth A. Biller , Aarynn L. Carter , Marshall D. Perrin , Michael Poon , Genaro Su\'arez , Ben J. Sutlieff , Johanna M. Vos
show 23 more authors
Jason J. Wang William O. Balmer Marta L. Bryan Anthony Boccaletti Julien H. Girard Eileen C. Gonzales Jens Kammerer Jarron M. Leisenring Paulina Palma-Bifani Kevin R. Wagner D\'aniel Apai Mick\"ael Bonnefoy Brendan P. Bowler Kyle Franson Pengyu Liu Marcio Mel\'endez Stanimir A. Metchev Simon Petrus Laurent Pueyo Isabel Rebollido Andrew J. Skemer Xianyu Tan Niall Whiteford
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanet atmospheresphotometric variabilityrotation periodspin-orbit alignmentcoronagraphic imagingJWST NIRCamcore accretionBeta Pictoris b
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.

Beta Pictoris b, a young super-Jupiter, shows subtle brightness wobbles that repeat every 9.00 ± 0.13 hours. The paper argues these wobbles are real astrophysical rotation modulation rather than telescope systematics: two independent near-infrared bands show the same period and nearly identical amplitudes of about 0.85–0.89%. Interpreting the period as the planet's rotation, and combining it with previously measured spin speed and an assumed radius, the authors infer the planet's spin axis is almost exactly edge-on to us — aligned with its orbit, the debris disk, and the stellar equator. If correct, this is the first measurement of rotational modulation and spin-orbit architecture for a close-in directly imaged planet, and it gives dynamical evidence that β Pic b formed by core accretion in a disk rather than by gravitational fragmentation.

Core claim

The paper reports the detection of coherent, sinusoidal photometric variability in β Pictoris b from 16 hours of JWST NIRCam dual-band coronagraphic imaging. In the F210M and F410M filters, the detrended light curves vary with periods of 9.08 ± 0.24 hr and 8.96 ± 0.10 hr; a joint fit gives a rotation period of 9.00 ± 0.13 hr and amplitudes of 0.85 ± 0.07% and 0.89 ± 0.04%. The near-identical period and amplitude in two bands that probe similar pressure levels are taken as evidence of a common astrophysical origin in a heterogeneous atmosphere rotating with the planet. Combining this period with a projected rotational velocity of about 19.9 km/s and a radius prior of about 1.4 Jupiter radii y

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is time-series coronagraphic photometry that isolates the planet's light from starlight, disk emission, and instrumental drifts. PSF subtraction using reference-star and angular differential imaging removes the stellar halo; principal component analysis of comparison apertures at the same separation but different position angles builds a systematic-noise model; injection-and-recovery tests show the pipeline neither creates nor destroys the signal. The load-bearing identity is the geometric relation connecting rotation period, radius, and projected spin speed: v sin i = 2π R / P_rot. Matching the measured spin speed with the equatorial speed implied by a 9-hour period an

Load-bearing premise

The edge-on spin and core-accretion conclusions assume a specific planet radius (about 1.4 Jupiter radii) and that the literature spin speed truly reflects rigid rotation; if the radius is about 10% larger, the data no longer force an equator-on geometry.

What would settle it

Re-observe β Pic b over several full rotations in a later epoch. If the ~9-hour period is not reproduced, or if the F210M and F410M light curves stop matching in period or phase, the rotation-modulation interpretation collapses. Alternatively, an independent radius estimate below about 1.25 Jupiter radii, or a revised spin speed above the value assumed here, would make the implied equatorial speed exceed the observed projected spin speed, falsifying the equator-on geometry.

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

If this is right

  • If the variability is rotation modulation, β Pic b has a roughly 9-hour day and sub-percent patchy cloud or spot structure at the pressures probed by 2–4 µm light.
  • The measured spin-axis inclination is consistent with alignment among the planet's spin, its orbit, the debris disk, and the stellar spin, placing β Pic b in a different obliquity class from the widely misaligned wide-orbit companions.
  • The authors caution that the full three-dimensional obliquity cannot be constrained without the sky-plane position angle of the spin axis, so only line-of-sight alignment is established.
  • The demonstrated sub-percent precision over 16 hours makes time-series coronagraphic imaging a viable way to measure rotation periods and possibly search for exomoons or post-impact oscillations in directly imaged planets.
  • The true period uncertainty may be larger than the formal ±0.13 hr because atmospheric evolution can distort a single-epoch light curve; the paper's waveform-recovery tests broaden the plausible range to roughly 8.5–9.4 hr.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the equator-on conclusion leans heavily on the adopted 1.4-Jupiter-radius prior; if the radius were 10% larger, the implied equatorial speed would rise to about 21.4 km/s and the best-fit inclination would drop to roughly 68°, so the alignment story is only as strong as the radius assumption.
  • Editorial inference: a single 16-hour epoch cannot distinguish a rigidly rotating patchy atmosphere from a wave-like pattern that drifts in time; repeated monitoring would test whether the 9-hour period is stable.
  • Editorial inference: applying the same observational method to a statistical sample of directly imaged planets could turn obliquity into a population-level test between bottom-up and top-down formation, since the two formation pathways predict different spin-orbit distributions.
  • Editorial inference: the near-equal amplitudes at 2 and 4 µm may indicate that both bands probe similar cloud layers; adding a band that straddles the cloud base would help identify whether clouds or magnetic spots drive the modulation.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a 16-hour JWST NIRCam dual-band coronagraphic monitoring campaign of the directly imaged super-Jupiter β Pic b, using the F210M and F410M filters. The authors develop a time-series photometry framework combining PSF subtraction, PCA-based systematic-noise removal, and injection-and-recovery validation. They report coherent sinusoidal variability in both bands, with a joint rotation period of P_rot = 9.00 ± 0.13 hr and semi-amplitudes of 0.85 ± 0.07% (F210M) and 0.89 ± 0.04% (F410M). They further combine P_rot with literature vsini and radius estimates to derive a line-of-sight spin-axis inclination, finding i_p ≈ 90°, which they interpret as evidence for spin-orbit alignment and, ultimately, for core-accretion formation of β Pic b.

Significance. If the variability detection holds, this is the first detection of rotational modulation in a close-in, directly imaged exoplanet, and it demonstrates that JWST NIRCam coronagraphic time-series photometry can reach sub-percent precision — a genuinely new observational capability. The paper's validation strategy is a strength: the forced-flat model (Section 4.1), multi-position-angle injection-and-recovery (Section 4.2), pixel-level PCA (Section 4.3), and independent validation apertures (Section 3.4) together provide strong evidence that the signal is not a pure systematic artifact. The rotation-period measurement itself is plausible and carefully caveated in Section 5.1. However, the obliquity and formation conclusions are not supported by the data. The paper's own Section 5.2 states that the true three-dimensional obliquity ψ is unconstrained because the sky-plane position angle of the spin axis is unmeasurable; despite this, the Abstract and Section 6 claim that the planetary spin axis, orbit, debris disk, and stellar equator are 'all mutually aligned' and that the observation provides 'independent dynamical evidence' for core accretion. This is a logical gap between the caveat

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Abstract, §6] The paper contains an internal inconsistency. Section 5.2 explicitly states: 'We caution that the true three-dimensional obliquity ψ cannot be constrained from the available data... Marginalizing over Ω_spin uniformly leaves ψ unconstrained.' Yet the Abstract and Section 6 assert that 'the planetary spin axis, orbital plane, debris disk, and stellar equator are all mutually aligned' and that the result 'provides independent dynamical evidence that β Pic b formed via core accretion.' For two vectors both lying near the plane of the sky (i_p ≈ i_orbit ≈ 90°), the actual angle between them is dominated by the unmeasured sky-plane position angle difference; the data only rule out spin axes pointing near the line of sight. The alignment and formation statements must be removed or reduced to a line-of-sight-only statement, in line with the paper's own caveat.
  2. [§5.2, Figure 15] The claim that the data 'strongly favor' an equator-on viewing geometry is largely a prior-boundary effect. With the adopted radius R ~ N(1.4, 0.1) R_Jup and P_rot = 9.00 hr, the implied v_eq = 2πR/P ≈ 19.4 km/s, essentially equal to the adopted vsini = 19.9 ± 1.0 km/s, so the posterior piles up at sini = 1 by construction. The alternative vsini values (22 ± 2 and 25 ± 3 km/s) formally exceed v_eq and can only be accommodated by boundary mass. A 10% larger radius (1.54 R_Jup) would give i_p ≈ 68°. Please show the sensitivity of the inclination posterior to the radius prior (e.g., uniform R over 1.2–1.6 R_Jup) and to a joint treatment of the three vsini measurements; otherwise the 'strongly favoring' wording is not justified.
  3. [§5.2, §6] The formation-pathway conclusion is not supported even under the paper's own assumptions. A line-of-sight inclination consistent with the orbit does not measure the obliquity ψ, so the 'stark contrast' with the large obliquities of wide-orbit companions is not established. The claim of 'independent dynamical evidence for core accretion' overreaches: a small projected obliquity is consistent with core accretion but does not discriminate among formation scenarios, since other mechanisms (e.g., disk-driven alignment or tidal realignment) can also produce alignment. The conclusion should be reframed as 'consistent with' rather than 'evidence for,' and the caveat about the unobservable Ω_spin should be carried through to the Abstract and Section 6.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §4.1] The Abstract reports '~5σ and ≫5σ significance' for the two bands, but the forced-flat model test in Section 4.1 yields only >3σ for F210M (reduced χ² = 1.15, p = 4.7×10⁻⁶). Please quote the range of significance across tests, or state the detection as 'moderately strong' rather than a single 5σ value.
  2. [Abstract, §5.1] The quoted period uncertainty of ±0.13 hr is explicitly acknowledged in Section 5.1 as likely underestimated due to waveform mismatch; the injection-recovery for multi-sine waveforms broadens the 16th–84th percentile range to 8.47–9.41 hr. The Abstract and Conclusions should carry this caveat or report the broader range, rather than presenting 9.00 ± 0.13 hr as the definitive rotation period.
  3. [§3.5, Figure 10] The periodogram of the Δx centroid offset shows 'substantial power' near the detected planetary period. The paper notes this in the text, but the figure and discussion would benefit from a quantitative comparison of the Δx periodogram peak height and the planetary peak, and from an explicit statement of the amount of signal that survives after including centroid terms in Equation (2).
  4. [§5.2, Figure 15] The right panel of Figure 15 is labeled 'Line-of-sight obliquity |i_p − i_o| versus semimajor axis.' This quantity is a lower bound on the true obliquity; the figure should state this clearly and avoid using the term 'obliquity' without qualification, since the paper correctly argues that ψ is unconstrained.
  5. [§3.3, Equation (1)] The planet contribution fraction c_i is defined as a visit-average quantity, but the forward-modeled PSF is applied with a roll-angle orientation that changes between Roll 1 and Roll 2. Please clarify how the time-dependent PSF orientation is incorporated in the aperture photometry and whether c_i is recomputed for each roll.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the variability and obliquity derivations propagate independent inputs; the spin-alignment conclusion overreaches but does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an observational measurement: sinusoidal fits to the JWST NIRCam light curves yield P_rot = 9.00 +/- 0.13 hr and amplitudes in F210M/F410M. These are fitted quantities, validated by independent injection-and-recovery tests, validation apertures, pixel-level PCA, and forced-flat tests; no prediction is equivalent to a fitted input by construction. The obliquity step combines this externally fitted P_rot with literature vsini values and a radius prior through the Masuda & Winn (2020) formula; the resulting i_p posterior is a propagation of independent inputs, not a renaming of any input. Self-citations to the spaceKLIP pipeline and earlier brown-dwarf variability studies are contextual and not load-bearing for the detection. The paper explicitly cautions in Section 5.2 that the true 3D obliquity psi cannot be constrained because Omega_spin is unobservable, yet the Abstract and Conclusions claim mutual alignment and 'independent dynamical evidence' for core accretion; this is an inferential overreach (correctness risk), not circularity, because no derived quantity is assumed in its own derivation. Under the hard rule that circularity requires a quotable reduction, no such step exists here.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The variability detection rests on fitted sinusoid parameters and PCA nuisance weights, validated by injection-recovery; the obliquity result rests on an externally adopted radius and three literature vsini values; the formation claim is an interpretive step, not a derived quantity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • P_rot (joint sinusoid period) = 9.00 ± 0.13 hr
    Fitted jointly to the F210M and F410M detrended light curves; the paper's own non-sinusoidal waveform injections broaden the recovered range to 8.47–9.41 hr (§5.1, Figure 14).
  • F210M semi-amplitude A = 0.85 ± 0.07%
    Amplitude of the joint sinusoidal fit in F210M (§3.5).
  • F410M semi-amplitude A = 0.89 ± 0.04%
    Amplitude of the joint sinusoidal fit in F410M (§3.5).
  • Per-aperture systematic weights (w0, wx, wy, w1–w3) = 6 parameters per light curve
    Weights for centroid offsets and the first three principal components in Eq. 2; fitted per aperture and roll, then applied to the planet aperture.
  • Host-star oscillation amplitudes and GP hyperparameters = 8 sinusoid coefficients + 3 GP hyperparameters
    Fitted to the stellar light curve to remove δ-Scuti oscillations; mode frequencies are fixed from Zieba et al. 2019 (§3.1).
  • Planet radius prior R = N(1.4, 0.1) R_Jup (adopted from Landman et al. 2024)
    Not fitted in this paper but load-bearing for the obliquity result: v_eq = 2πR/P ≈ 19.4 km/s at the prior center, which sets i_p ≈ 90° when matched against vsini = 19.9 km/s (§5.2).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Linear decomposition of aperture flux (Eq. 1): F_i = [(1−c_i)·F_star + c_i·F_planet]·S_sys,i + ϵ_i
    Modeling choice standard in exoplanet time-series photometry; if the stellar and planetary components do not add linearly, the derived planet amplitude is biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Sinusoidal planet light-curve model (Eq. 3)
    A single sinusoid is adopted as the nominal rotation-modulation model; the paper tests it in §4.1 (forced-flat) and §5.1 (non-sinusoidal injection), which bounds but does not remove the model-mismatch risk.
  • domain assumption Stellar oscillation frequencies fixed at the four Zieba et al. 2019 modes (P = 0.5049, 0.5284, 0.4835, 0.4424 hr)
    Frequencies taken from prior literature with only amplitudes fitted; an unmodeled mode at the epoch of observation could imprint residuals on the planet light curve.
  • domain assumption Literature vsini values (Snellen 2014: 25±3; Parker 2024: 22±2; Landman 2024: 19.9±1.0 km/s) and the radius prior R ~ N(1.4, 0.1) R_Jup
    External measurements adopted without re-derivation; the inclination result (§5.2, Figure 15) is directly sensitive to these inputs.
  • standard math Statistical machinery: Lomb-Scargle FAP (Baluev 2008), χ² with empirically estimated per-point noise, MCMC posteriors
    Uncontroversial background; the noise model assumes identical independent Gaussian uncertainties estimated from a high-pass-filtered light curve, which simplifies correlated errors.
  • domain assumption The ~9 hr photometric period equals the solid-body rotation period, with sub-percent modulation from rotating heterogeneous atmospheric structures
    Interpretive step standard in the brown-dwarf variability literature; the dataset spans less than ~1.6 cycles, so the period-to-rotation identification cannot be independently confirmed within this observation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28975 in / 20223 out tokens · 198523 ms · 2026-08-02T06:07:44.453943+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We report the detection of photometric variability in the directly imaged super-Jupiter $\beta$ Pictoris b. Using JWST NIRCam dual-band coronagraphic imaging, we conducted a 16-hour continuous photometric monitoring campaign in the F210M and F410M filters. We developed and validated a time-series photometry framework that combines PSF subtraction, principal component analysis for systematic noise removal, and injection-and-recovery tests to confirm signal fidelity. Both light curves show consistent sinusoidal variability at $\sim$5$\sigma$ and $\gg 5\sigma$ significance in the F210M and F410M bands, respectively. A joint sinusoidal fit yields a rotation period of $P_{\rm rot} = 9.00 \pm 0.13$ hr and variability amplitudes of $0.85 \pm 0.07\%$ and $0.89 \pm 0.04\%$ in F210M and F410M, respectively. The near-identical amplitudes and periods in both bands confirm a common astrophysical origin in a heterogeneous atmosphere. Combining $P_{\rm rot}$ with the previously measured projected rotational velocity, we constrain the line-of-sight spin axis inclination of $\beta$ Pic b. The result favors an equator-on viewing geometry, consistent with line-of-sight spin-orbit alignment: the planetary spin axis, orbital plane, debris disk, and stellar equator are all mutually aligned. This stands in sharp contrast to the large obliquities of wide-separation companions that are likely formed via gravitational fragmentation. Together with the system's young age, this observation provides independent dynamical evidence that $\beta$ Pic b formed via core accretion. This result constitutes the first detection of rotational modulation in a close-in, high-contrast exoplanet that likely formed via core accretion, demonstrating that time-series coronagraphic imaging with JWST opens a powerful new window onto the rotation, atmospheric dynamics, and spin-orbit architecture of this population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13133 by Aarynn L. Carter, Andrew J. Skemer, Anthony Boccaletti, Ben J. Sutlieff, Beth A. Biller, Brendan P. Bowler, D\'aniel Apai, Eileen C. Gonzales, Genaro Su\'arez, Isabel Rebollido, Jarron M. Leisenring, Jason J. Wang, Jens Kammerer, Johanna M. Vos, Julien H. Girard, Kevin R. Wagner, Kyle Franson, Laurent Pueyo, Marcio Mel\'endez, Marshall D. Perrin, Marta L. Bryan, Michael Poon, Mick\"ael Bonnefoy, Niall Whiteford, Paulina Palma-Bifani, Pengyu Liu, Simon Petrus, Stanimir A. Metchev, William O. Balmer, Xianyu Tan, Yifan Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Filter selection and observation sequence for the β Pic b monitoring campaign. Top: transmission functions of the F210M (blue) and F410M (orange) filters overlaid on the probed atmospheric pressure of β Pic b (black). The probed pressure curve is derived assuming a Teff = 1700 K cloudy Exo-Rem model (B. Charnay et al. 2018). Both filters probe the K and L band continuum at similar photospheric pressure lev… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Centroid shifts relative to the median value of ei￾ther rolls in x and y directions. The telescope maintained ex￾tremely precise pointing (σ ∼ 0.01 pixels in F210M, 0.3 mas) during the observations. A pointing jump occurred at 1.55 hr after the start of the first science integration due to a mir￾ror tilt event then. to each frame. The stpsf model was generated us￾ing wavefront information retrieved from MA… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: F210M light curve of the host star. Upper panel: The raw aperture photometry shows strong oscillation signals consistent with β Pic’s known oscillation periods. Instrument systematics induce apparent flux jumps. Lower panel: A Gaussian process successfully removes the systematic trend. The corrected light curve is well fit by four sine waves representing the strongest oscillation modes (red curve). the lig… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: spaceKLIP PSF subtraction yields high S/N detection of β Pic b in the F210M and F410M bands (upper left and upper right). The newly discovered planet β Pic d (A. Gibbs et al. 2026; B. J. Sutlieff et al. 2026) is visible in the F410M band image. KLIP Forward models using STPSF models successfully describe the detected planet signal and provide precise time-averaged photometry estimates (lower panels). C. Ma… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The aperture positions. Apertures for β Pic b, comparison positions, and validation positions are shown in blue solid, color dashed, and white dotted circles, respec￾tively. Upper panels are for the F210M band and lower pan￾els are for the F410M band. Nominal aperture radii of 3.5 pixels for F210M and 2 pixels for F410M are represented by the size of the circles. 3.3. Time series photometry of β Pic b Time… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: F210M and F410M light curves (the Fi(t) term in Equation 1). Light curves measured in the planet apertures are plotted in black lines and the comparison aperture light curves are plotted in the same colors as their apertures in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstration of the light curve correction procedure using the F410M data. The top panels show the measured planet-aperture light curves in the two telescope rolls. Black dots are the raw flux measurements. Red lines are the best-fitting light curve model (Eq. 1). The second and third rows decompose the aperture model into stellar (blue) and planetary (orange) components. The bottom row shows the isolated… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Light curves after the PCA model correction in F210M (left) and F410M (right).The corrected light curves of β Pic b (black solid lines) are compared with those extracted from the comparison apertures. The validation apertures at diverse positions sample a broad range of systematic environments. Six aper￾tures lie at slightly smaller angular separations than the planet aperture (400 mas), three at slightly … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Significance of the variability detection demonstrated by χ 2 statistics. We compare the corrected light curves extracted from the planet, comparison, and validation apertures with a flat line and compute the χ 2 deviation. The planet’s light curves show deviations far exceed a 5σ threshold. All validation light curves are consistent with the flat line model. 3.5. Identifying the periodic signals We search… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Lomb-Scargle periodograms of β Pic b in F210M (blue) and F410M (red). Top: Periodograms of the corrected target light curves. Both filters show a dominant peak near ∼8–9 hr above the 0.1% false-alarm probability level (dashed line). Vertical dotted lines mark the peak period in each filter. The black curve shows the normalized sampling window, computed from the observation times and plotted against the ri… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Detrended light curves of β Pic b in F210M (blue) and F410M (red) and the best-fitting sinusoids. The colored solid lines show the best-fit sinusoid from the individual-filter fit, and the black solid line shows the best-fit sinusoid from the joint fit across both filters. These two fits are almost identical and result in nearly indistinguishable solution. Residuals after subtracting the joint fit are sho… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Summary of the injection and recovery test results for the F210M (left) and F410M (right). The upper panels show recovered light curves when injecting a flat line (blue) and a sinusoid (orange). The most noisy recovered light curves are presented to show the pessimistic scenario. The lower panels show the reduced χ 2 between the recovered light curves and a flat line. The 5σ threshold and the observed val… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparisons between the nominal method and the pixel-level PCA method. The two measurements are shown in the x and y dimensions. The black dashed lines show the one-to-one correlation. Both methods produce sta￾tistically consistent results for F210M and F410M data. 2). Considering all three tests, we assess the F210M variability detection as moderately strong (∼ 5σ) and the F410M detection as decisive (≫ … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Recovery of the rotation period from synthetic F410M light curves sampled at the observed cadence and uncertainties. Blue shows period recovery of a sinusoid, and purple shows injections with k = 1 and k = 2 sinusoids mo￾tivated by the planetary scale wave models. The dashed line marks the injected period of 9.0 hr. The sinusoidal cases re￾cover a narrow period distribution, while the multi-sine wave￾form… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Angular momentum architecture and spin-axis inclination of β Pic b. Left: The orbital (L⃗ o), disk (L⃗ d), and stellar spin (L⃗ s) angular momenta are mutually aligned to within a few degrees. This work constrains ip and L⃗ p relative to the line of sight. Middle: Posterior distributions of the spin-axis inclination ip of β Pic b derived from three independent v sin i measurements. One calculation assumed… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: A comparison of the variability amplitude of β Pic b with those observed in brown dwarfs by Spitzer (S. A. Metchev et al. 2015; B. A. Biller et al. 2018; J. M. Vos et al. 2022; Y. Zhou et al. 2020). Peak-to-peak amplitudes are adopted following literature convention. Color coding represents the observational bandpass: blue and pink for NIRCam F210M and F410M, respectively (this work); dark blue and red fo… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Observed mirror tilt and resulting coronagraphic PSF change. Left: Measured ∆WFE from WFS observations bracketing these data.Moderate tilts are observed affecting segments on the right (+V2) deployed wing of the primary. The observed pattern shows only piston-tip-tilt segment motions; no micrometeor impacts are detected. Left center: Same ∆WFE multiplied by the NIRCam Lyot stop. The affected segments are … view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: A flash observed by JWST’s guider at the same time as the discontinuity in the time series data. The main panel shows the median background level in the 8 × 8 “postage stamp” guide exposures. The background spikes sharply at the moment of the PSF change. Insets compare a typical guide star image to the image at the time of the event. The flash morphology is consistent with a micrometeor strike. A comprehe… 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

106 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2023, PASP, 135, 075001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3

    Albert, L., Lafreni` ere, D., Ren´ e, D., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 075001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3 2023

  2. [2]

    R., Alam, M

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3 2023

  3. [3]

    Apai, D., Nardiello, D., & Bedin, L. R. 2021, ApJ, 906, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcb97

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcb97 2021

  4. [4]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/121

    Apai, D., Radigan, J., Buenzli, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/121

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

  5. [5]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 40, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/40

    Apai, D., Kasper, M., Skemer, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 40, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/40

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

  6. [6]

    S., et al

    Apai, D., Karalidi, T., Marley, M. S., et al. 2017, Science, 357, 683, doi: 10.1126/science.aam9848 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4381/ac7c74

    doi:10.1126/science.aam9848 2017

  7. [7]

    Baluev, R. V. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1279, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12689.x

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    2018, AJ, 155, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab54e

    Batygin, K. 2018, AJ, 155, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab54e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aab54e 2018

  9. [9]

    A., Vos, J., Buenzli, E., et al

    Biller, B. A., Vos, J., Buenzli, E., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa5a6

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaa5a6 2018

  10. [10]

    A., Apai, D., Bonnefoy, M., et al

    Biller, B. A., Apai, D., Bonnefoy, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 743, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab202

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab202 2021

  11. [11]

    A., Vos, J

    Biller, B. A., Vos, J. M., Zhou, Y., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1602

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1602 2024

  12. [12]

    2013, A&A, 555, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220838

    Bonnefoy, M., Boccaletti, A., Lagrange, A.-M., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220838

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220838 2013

  13. [13]

    P., Zhou, Y., Morley, C

    Bowler, B. P., Zhou, Y., Morley, C. V., et al. 2020, ApJL, 893, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8197

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8197 2020

  14. [14]

    Brandt, T. D. 2024a, PASP, 136, 045005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad38da

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad38da

  15. [15]

    Brandt, T. D. 2024b, PASP, 136, 045004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad38d9

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad38d9

  16. [16]

    Bowler, B. P. 2021, AJ, 162, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1bb1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac1bb1 2021

  17. [17]

    L., Chiang, E., Bowler, B

    Bryan, M. L., Chiang, E., Bowler, B. P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab76c6 24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab76c6 2020

  18. [18]

    2025, spaceKLIP: JWST coronagraphy data data reduction and analysis pipeline,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2502.014 http://ascl.net/2502.014

    Carter, A., Kammerer, J., Leisenring, J., et al. 2025, spaceKLIP: JWST coronagraphy data data reduction and analysis pipeline,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2502.014 http://ascl.net/2502.014

    2025

  19. [19]

    L., Hinkley, S., Kammerer, J., et al

    Carter, A. L., Hinkley, S., Kammerer, J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd93e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd93e 2023

  20. [20]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d

    Charnay, B., B´ ezard, B., Baudino, J.-L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d 2018

  21. [21]

    A., Tan, X., et al

    Chen, X., Biller, B. A., Tan, X., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 3758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf737

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf737 2025

  22. [22]

    J., et al

    Chilcote, J., Pueyo, L., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa63e9

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa63e9 2017

  23. [23]

    Correia, A. C. M., & Laskar, J. 2001, Nature, 411, 767, doi: 10.1038/35081000

    work page doi:10.1038/35081000 2001

  24. [24]

    I., Murray-Clay, R

    Dawson, R. I., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2011, ApJL, 743, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L17

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/l17 2011

  25. [25]

    2015, George: Gaussian Process regression,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1511.015 http://ascl.net/1511.015

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2015, George: Gaussian Process regression,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1511.015 http://ascl.net/1511.015

    2015

  26. [26]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  27. [27]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c84

    Fuda, N., Apai, D., Nardiello, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c84

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c84 2024

  28. [28]

    2025, MNRAS, 537, 134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf004

    Gandhi, S., de Regt, S., Snellen, I., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf004

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf004 2025

  29. [29]

    N., et al

    Ge, H., Zhang, X., Fletcher, L. N., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafba7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafba7 2019

  30. [30]

    Discovery of an Exterior Third Planet Orbiting $\beta$ Pictoris

    Gibbs, A., Ruffio, J.-B., Bidot, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.23789, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.23789 GRA VITY Collaboration, Nowak, M., Lacour, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936898

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.23789 2026

  31. [31]

    R., Lindler, D

    Heap, S. R., Lindler, D. J., Lanz, T. M., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, 435, doi: 10.1086/309188

    doi:10.1086/309188 2000

  32. [32]

    A., Biller, B., et al

    Householder, A., Limbach, M. A., Biller, B., et al. 2025, ApJL, 992, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae09ab

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae09ab 2025

  33. [33]

    J., Xuan, J

    Hsu, C.-C., Wang, J. J., Xuan, J. W., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae434b

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae434b 2026

  34. [34]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf46e

    Huang, X., Ji, J., Liu, S., Dong, R., & Wang, S. 2023, ApJ, 956, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf46e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf46e 2023

  35. [35]

    M., & Chiang, E

    Jennings, R. M., & Chiang, E. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5187, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2429

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2429 2021

  36. [36]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 404, 475, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16309.x

    Johansen, A., & Lacerda, P. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 404, 475, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16309.x

    arXiv 2010

  37. [37]

    L., et al

    Kammerer, J., Girard, J., Carter, A. L., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 121803N, doi: 10.1117/12.2628865

    doi:10.1117/12.2628865 2022

  38. [38]

    D., et al

    Kammerer, J., Lawson, K., Perrin, M. D., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4ffe

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad4ffe 2024

  39. [39]

    Pasachoff, J. M. 2015, ApJ, 814, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/65

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/65 2015

  40. [40]

    A., Mellon, S

    Kenworthy, M. A., Mellon, S. N., Bailey, J. I., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040060

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040060 2021

  41. [41]

    2020, ApJL, 897, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9d27

    Kraus, S., Le Bouquin, J.-B., Kreplin, A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 897, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9d27

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab9d27 2020

  42. [42]

    J., Rodet, L., et al

    Lacour, S., Wang, J. J., Rodet, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141889 Lafreni` ere, D., Marois, C., Doyon, R., & Barman, T. 2009, ApJL, 694, L148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/L148

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141889 2021

  43. [43]

    2010, Science, 329, 57, doi: 10.1126/science.1187187

    Lagrange, A.-M., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 57, doi: 10.1126/science.1187187

    doi:10.1126/science.1187187 2010

  44. [44]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1135, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0857-1

    Lagrange, A.-M., Meunier, N., Rubini, P., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1135, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0857-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0857-1 2019

  45. [45]

    M., Rubini, P., Nowak, M., et al

    Lagrange, A. M., Rubini, P., Nowak, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038823

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038823 2020

  46. [46]

    Clouds with a silicate lining: Using JWST spectra to probe atmospheric diversity in young AB Dor L dwarfs

    Lam, M. B., Vos, J. M., Su´ arez, G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.24662, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.24662

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.24662 2026

  47. [47]

    Landman, R., Stolker, T., Snellen, I. A. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347846

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347846 2024

  48. [48]

    Lew, B. W. P., Apai, D., Zhou, Y., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5f59

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5f59 2020

  49. [49]

    2021, ApJL, 915, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0620

    Li, G. 2021, ApJL, 915, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0620

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0620 2021

  50. [50]

    A., Vos, J

    Limbach, M. A., Vos, J. M., Winn, J. N., et al. 2021, ApJL, 918, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1e2d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac1e2d 2021

  51. [51]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and Space Science, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    doi:10.1007/bf00648343 1976

  52. [52]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/500401 2006

  53. [53]

    Masuda, K., & Winn, J. N. 2020, AJ, 159, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab65be

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab65be 2020

  54. [54]

    M., Vos, J

    McCarthy, A. M., Vos, J. M., Muirhead, P. S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 981, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9eaf M´ ekarnia, D., Chapellier, E., Guillot, T., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732121

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9eaf 2025

  55. [55]

    A., Heinze, A., Apai, D., et al

    Metchev, S. A., Heinze, A., Apai, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/154 Miles-P´ aez, P. A., Metchev, S., Apai, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d25 25

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

  56. [56]

    2003, ApJ, 583, 451, doi: 10.1086/345097

    Mohanty, S., & Basri, G. 2003, ApJ, 583, 451, doi: 10.1086/345097

    doi:10.1086/345097 2003

  57. [57]

    V., Marley, M

    Morley, C. V., Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J., & Lupu, R. 2014, ApJL, 789, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L14

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/l14 2014

  58. [58]

    Lagrange, A. M. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 896, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.4.896

    doi:10.1093/mnras/292.4.896 1997

  59. [59]

    B., et al

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., et al. 2016, Lmfit: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.014 http://ascl.net/1606.014

    2016

  60. [60]

    Fielding, D. B. 2016, ApJL, 827, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L11

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/l11 2016

  61. [61]

    Disentangling auroral, cloud and magnetic spot driven variability in three early L-dwarfs with HST/WFC3

    Oliveros-Gomez, N., Manjavacas, E., Karalidi, T., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae21d9 O’Toole, C., Vos, J. M., Nasedkin, E. N., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.24663, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.24663

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.24663 2026

  62. [62]

    2023, A&A, 670, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244294

    Palma-Bifani, P., Chauvin, G., Bonnefoy, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244294

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244294 2023

  63. [63]

    T., Birkby, J

    Parker, L. T., Birkby, J. L., Landman, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1277

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1277 2024

  64. [64]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, & H. A. MacEwen, 91433X, doi: 10.1117/12.2056689

    doi:10.1117/12.2056689 2014

  65. [65]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Sivaramakrishnan, A. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8442, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012:

    2012

  66. [66]

    Oschmann, Jr., 84423D, doi: 10.1117/12.925230

    doi:10.1117/12.925230

  67. [67]

    L., Rein, H., et al

    Poon, M., Bryan, M. L., Rein, H., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1f0e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1f0e 2025

  68. [68]

    L., Rein, H., et al

    Poon, M., Bryan, M. L., Rein, H., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 270, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad84e5

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad84e5 2024

  69. [69]

    Stellar separation shapes spin-orbit alignment in visual binaries

    Poon, M., Pham, D., Bryan, M. L., Rein, H., & Dong, J. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.18921, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.18921

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.18921 2026

  70. [70]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 117, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/117

    Pueyo, L. 2016, ApJ, 824, 117, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/117

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/117 2016

  71. [71]

    2012, ApJ, 750, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/105

    Radigan, J., Jayawardhana, R., Lafreni` ere, D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/105

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/105 2012

  72. [72]

    2008, ApJ, 684, 1390, doi: 10.1086/590073

    Reiners, A., & Basri, G. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1390, doi: 10.1086/590073

    doi:10.1086/590073 2008

  73. [73]

    2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., & JWST Commissioning Team. 2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acb293 2023

  74. [74]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    doi:10.1086/160554 1982

  75. [75]

    2023, PASP, 135, 018001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aca718

    Schlawin, E., Beatty, T., Brooks, B., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 018001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aca718

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aca718 2023

  76. [76]

    2005, A&A, 429, 1007, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041932

    Scholz, A., & Eisl¨ offel, J. 2005, A&A, 429, 1007, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041932

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041932 2005

  77. [77]

    2015, ApJL, 809, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/L29

    Scholz, A., Kostov, V., Jayawardhana, R., & Muˇ zi´ c, K. 2015, ApJL, 809, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/L29

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/809/2/l29 2015

  78. [78]

    A., Rowe, J

    Simon, A. A., Rowe, J. F., Gaulme, P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 162, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/162

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/162 2016

  79. [79]

    L., Benz, W., & Cameron, A

    Slattery, W. L., Benz, W., & Cameron, A. G. W. 1992, Icarus, 99, 167, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90180-F

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(92)90180-f 1992

  80. [80]

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

    doi:10.1038/nature13253 2014

Showing first 80 references.