Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Closeby Habitable Exoplanet Survey (CHES). IV. Synergy between astrometry and direct imaging missions of the Habitable World Observatory for detecting Earth-like planets

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Astrometric foreknowledge can lift direct-imaging yields of habitable planets by five to ten.

desk verdict A credible, clearly-scoped simulation showing CHES prior astrometry can modestly boost HWO completeness and yield—but the headline numbers assume CHES already detects every injected planet. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02818 v1 pith:YAQ7MTVR submitted 2025-05-05 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Chunhui Bao , Jianghui Ji , Dongjie Tan , Guo Chen , Xiumin Huang , Su Wang , Yao Dong This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords astrometrydirectimaginghabitableplanetsexoplanetdetectioncompletenessCHESmissionHWOyieldsimulationKepleroccurrencerates
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

This paper tries to establish that running a micro-arcsecond astrometry mission before a direct-imaging flagship can make the imaging of Earth-like planets substantially more efficient, and it quantifies the gain for two concrete planned missions, CHES and HWO. The authors simulate CHES measuring stellar wobbles to fix the orbits of injected planets, then use those orbits to schedule HWO observations at the moment each planet reflects the most starlight and is outside the coronagraph's inner working angle. Under their adopted detection limit, prior astrometric knowledge improves detection completeness by roughly 10 percent and detection efficiency by factors of two to thirty, and it raises the predicted number of detectable habitable planets by five to ten, to about 37 planets in the conservative habitable zone and 47 in the optimistic one under the low-occurrence Kepler model. If correct, the result argues that precursor astrometry is a cheap way to buy yield from a future imager without changing the imager itself. The paper closes by converting the simulations into a priority ranking of HWO target stars.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the phase-dependent reflected-light contrast $C = A_g \phi(\beta) (R_p/r)^2$ with the Lambert phase function, combined with Keplerian orbit propagation. CHES astrometry constrains the orbital elements; from those elements the paper predicts the time $t_p$ at which a planet reaches maximum contrast while remaining outside the inner working angle, and HWO observes only at those times. Detection completeness is computed by injecting planet populations, binning radius versus semi-major axis, and applying three criteria — angular separation within the working angles, magnitude limit, and $S/N > 7$ — with a benefit-to-cost ratio $f = (S/N)\,C_{\mathrm{det}}/(N_v \tau)$ that measures signal and completeness per unit observing time. For two-planet systems the scheduler compares simultaneous and sequential visits to maximize this ratio. Expected yields are obtained by multiplying per-cell completeness by the adopted Kepler-based occurrence-rate model.

What would settle it

An end-to-end simulation that passes the actual CHES astrometric time series, including its roughly 1 microarcsecond Gaussian and stellar-activity noise, through the orbital retrieval code, and only feeds successfully recovered orbits into the HWO scheduler, would settle whether the claimed completeness and yield gains hold; the present paper instead assumes those orbits are already known and does not report the recovery fraction for these specific targets.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that known orbits are the dominant lever in direct-imaging detection of habitable planets. Treating CHES and HWO as prototypes, the paper injects one- and two-planet systems around 164 nearby solar-type stars, retrieves their orbits from simulated CHES astrometry with a realistic micro-arcsecond noise budget, and computes whether an HWO-like coronagraph would detect them under three criteria: angular separation between the inner and outer working angles, apparent magnitude brighter than the limit, and signal-to-noise ratio above 7. With prior astrometry, observations are scheduled at the phase of peak reflected-light contrast, and the paper finds completeness rises by about 10% for most targets, the benefit-to-cost ratio improves by a factor of two to thirty, and expected yields grow by 5 to 10 planets, from roughly 37 to 42 in the conservative habitable zone and from roughly 47 to 54 in the optimistic zone under the low-occurrence model. The gains are largest for planets near 1 au, where astrometric signals are strongest, and the efficiency gains are largest for the nearest common targets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that every injected planet's orbit is already known from CHES astrometry before the imaging schedule is set; if CHES's roughly 1 microarcsecond total noise cannot actually detect and retrieve the orbits of the faintest Earth analogues, whose astrometric signal is only about 0.3 microarcseconds at 10 parsecs, then the claimed 10% completeness gain and the five to ten added yields would be smaller.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CHES observes before HWO, the imager can time each target to near-maximum reflected-light contrast, reducing required exposure time by factors of two to thirty for the same signal-to-noise.
  • Expected habitable-planet yield under the low-occurrence model rises by five to ten planets, from about 37 to 42 in the conservative habitable zone and from about 47 to 54 in the optimistic zone.
  • Astrometric priors add roughly 10% completeness, recovering some smaller and closer-in planets that imaging alone misses, with the largest completeness gains appearing for more distant stars.
  • The efficiency gains are largest for the nearest stars shared by both missions, so precursor astrometry changes the priority ordering of HWO targets, not just the total yield.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension of this logic is that the yield gain should scale monotonically with astrometric precision: re-running the pipeline with higher-noise astrometry would show the added planets shrinking toward zero, which would confirm that orbital knowledge, not the mere existence of a precursor, drives the effect.
  • The quoted gain of five to ten added planets should be read as an optimistic bound, because the paper credits CHES with perfect knowledge of every injected orbit; folding in the actual CHES detection and retrieval success rate would likely push the realized gain toward the lower end.
  • The same scheduling principle could be transferred to starshade imagers or to narrower-band photometry, where the phase dependence of reflected light is different; the target ranking would then shift, offering a direct way to prioritize which astrometric orbits are worth measuring first.
  • From a mission-planning perspective, these results suggest that a relatively small astrometry mission flown before a flagship imager may buy yield more cheaply than increasing the imager's aperture or contrast, since the gain here comes from scheduling rather than hardware.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper simulates the synergy between the proposed CHES astrometry mission and the Habitable World Observatory (HWO) direct-imaging mission for detecting Earth-like planets around nearby stars. The authors model Keplerian orbits, Lambert-phase reflected-light contrast, a Hybrid Lyot Coronagraph response, and signal-to-noise criteria to compute detection completeness and expected planet yields for the 164-star HWO catalog. They find that prior CHES astrometry, assumed to provide known orbits, increases imaging completeness by about 10%, improves the benefit-to-cost ratio by factors of two to thirty, and adds roughly five to ten expected detections under the Bryson et al. (2021) occurrence-rate model. The paper also provides a per-star priority ranking.

Significance. If the stated gains are robust, the paper provides a quantitative, mission-relevant argument for coordinating CHES astrometry with HWO imaging and offers a concrete target-priority list. Its strengths include the use of standard physical models (Lambert phase function, Kepler orbits, HLC curves, Bryson occurrence rates), an end-to-end simulation pipeline based on public tools (EXOSIMS, RCETC, Nii-C, synphot), and a clear detection criterion (S/N > 7 with separation and magnitude limits). The main result, however, is conditional on the assumption that CHES has already detected every planet whose orbit is used to schedule HWO observations; the paper does not apply a CHES detection threshold to the injected population, so the headline completeness and yield gains are upper bounds rather than expected values. The orbital-retrieval exercise in Section 4.2 demonstrates phase-prediction accuracy only for Earth-mass planets at the center of the habitable zone and does not assess whether CHES would detect the fainter, smaller, or more distant planets in the completeness sample. This is a load-bearing caveat that needs to be either modeled or explicitly stated as a limitation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Fig. 6, Table 3] The synergy scenario assumes that the orbits of all injected planets are already known ('assuming their orbits are already known'), but the preceding orbital-retrieval analysis in §4.2 is performed only for Earth-mass planets at the center of the habitable zone and does not apply a detection threshold. Given the stated CHES total noise of approximately 1 µas per epoch and an astrometric signal of 0.3 µas for an Earth-mass planet at 1 au around a solar-type star at 10 pc, a substantial fraction of the injected population (radii down to 0.5 R⊕, distances beyond 10 pc, and eccentric orbits) would likely not be detected by CHES. Consequently, the approximately 10% completeness gain and the five-to-ten added planets in Table 3 are conditional upper bounds, not expected values. The authors should either apply a realistic CHES detection gate in the Monte Carlo completeness and yield calculations, or explicitly reframe all synergy gains as upper limits and acknowledge this in Section 7.
  2. [Abstract vs. Table 3] The abstract states that the synergy yields 'approximately 37 and 47 planets' in the conservative and optimistic habitable zones under the low-occurrence model, but Table 3 reports 41.78 and 54.33 for imaging plus astrometry, and 37.11 and 46.80 for imaging alone. The numbers quoted in the abstract do not match the table; the sentence appears to mix the imaging-only conservative value with an incorrect optimistic value. This inconsistency should be corrected so the abstract faithfully represents Table 3.
  3. [§5.2, Eq. (18)] The benefit-to-cost comparison mixes different observing strategies: the imaging-only scenario uses optimized multi-epoch revisits (Nv up to 6), while the astrometry-assisted scenario uses a single observation at the predicted maximum-contrast phase. The reported efficiency gain of two to thirty therefore conflates the value of orbit knowledge with the reduction in visit count and does not share a common time budget between scenarios. This is not necessarily an error, but it should be stated explicitly so the efficiency factor is not over-interpreted as a pure sensitivity gain.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.1] The sentence 'The detection completeness Cdet is defined as which is the fraction of possible planets that will be detected' is grammatically incomplete and should be rephrased.
  2. [§4.2] The text says 'standard derivations of 0.36 and 0.74 µas' but should read 'standard deviations'; also the noise components are described as Gaussian, which is reasonable but should be stated as an assumption.
  3. [§6] In the sentence 'we construct girds over Rp and a' the word 'girds' should be 'grids'; similar typos appear elsewhere (e.g., 'the parameters combination', 'such system are').
  4. [Eq. (2)] The Kepler equation block is garbled in the text: the line 'E:' and the expression for tan(f/2) are missing their proper equation formatting and the connecting relation between E and the mean anomaly is unclear.
  5. [§5.3] The paper states that the Bryson et al. (2021) parameters are taken from the Poisson likelihood fit, but it does not list the adopted values of F0, C0, α, β, γ, or the form of g(Teff). Providing these values (or an equation reference with the specific numbers) would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the synergy gains are forward simulations under an explicit perfect-prior assumption, with retrieval-error and external occurrence models providing independent grounding.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a forward simulation rather than a fit. In Section 5.2 it explicitly states the scenario: 'we randomly generate systems containing one or two planet using parameters listed in Table 2, assuming their orbits are already known.' The resulting completeness gain (~10%), benefit-to-cost improvement (factor 2–30), and yields (37 and 47 planets) are then computed by evaluating the HWO S/N model at the maximum-contrast phase. This is an idealization of the astrometric prior, but it is not a circular reduction: the output is not identical to the input, and the simulation uses independent instrumental and population ingredients (Stark et al. 2014, Mamajek & Stapelfeldt 2024, Bryson et al. 2021). The orbital-retrieval check in Section 4.2 injects signals and uses MCMC to assess how well the optimal phase can be predicted, reporting Cp/Cmax in Figure 4; it does not define the completeness gain in terms of the fitted parameters. Occurrence rates come from the external Kepler-based Bryson et al. (2021) model, so the yield estimates are not self-referential. The main caveat—that CHES detection is not gated before a planet is admitted to the 'known orbit' prior set, so the gains are upper bounds—is a modeling limitation rather than circularity; the paper partially acknowledges retrieval limitations in Section 7 ('the characteristics of target stars (e.g., magnitude, distance and stellar activity) have not been accounted for in orbital retrieval') but does not flag the missing CHES detection gate. Self-citations to CHES noise models and the Nii-C retrieval code are used as instrument and software inputs, not as the target result, so they do not constitute load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation rests on standard Keplerian and reflected-light physics, on HWO and CHES performance parameters taken from prior mission studies (including the authors' own CHES papers), and on Kepler-derived occurrence rates. The most consequential modeled assumption is that orbits are already known in the synergy scenario, which makes the gains upper bounds. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Observation scheduling parameters N_v, Delta T, tau per star = Grid-selected per target, e.g., 5 visits x 4 hr for HD 100623 A
    Chosen by grid search to maximize completeness with a 2% time-saving rule (Section 5.1); affects absolute completeness and the efficiency comparison. Not fitted to external data, but chosen by hand.
  • Priority weighting factors in rankindex = 0.5 for disks/binaries, 2 for known planets
    Ad hoc factors in Section 6 that set the target priority rankings in Table 4.
  • Number of orbital-element error samples = 50
    Arbitrary choice in Section 4.2 for the error bars on Cp/Cmax.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption HWO will achieve the baseline optical performance in Table 1 (D=6 m, IWA=58 mas, core contrast 4e-11, throughput 0.18, etc.)
    The HLC coronagraph data and NASEM specifications are used in Section 4.3 and Table 1; if HWO's final design differs, completeness and yields change.
  • domain assumption CHES achieves roughly 1 microarcsecond total astrometric noise and its cadence yields orbital elements with the simulated uncertainties
    Taken from Ji et al. 2022, Bao et al. 2024, and Tan et al. 2024; the synergy result depends on these error levels (Section 4.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Orbits of injected planets are assumed to be already known in the astrometry-assisted scenario
    Section 5.2 explicitly assumes orbits are already known; this idealization is the paper's weakest premise and is not conditioned on CHES detection completeness.
  • domain assumption Planet radius and albedo are known and constant when predicting contrast
    Section 4.2 states this assumption; real Earth-like planets have varying albedo, which affects the accuracy of the predicted contrast.
  • domain assumption Kepler DR25 occurrence rates of Bryson et al. 2021 apply to the HWO target sample
    Used in Equation 19 and Section 5.3; yields scale with these rates, and the paper acknowledges occurrence-rate uncertainty dominates yield uncertainty.
  • standard math The Lambert phase function describes planetary reflected light
    Equation 9 adopts the Lambert phase function as a simplification, following Sobolev 1975 and Stark et al. 2014.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Closeby Habitable Exoplanet Survey (CHES). IV. Synergy between astrometry and direct imaging missions of the Habitable World Observatory for detecting Earth-like planets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YAQ7MTVR

@misc{pith2026250502818,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Closeby Habitable Exoplanet Survey (CHES). IV. Synergy between astrometry and direct imaging missions of the Habitable World Observatory for detecting Earth-like planets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YAQ7MTVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02818}
}
read the original abstract

The detection and characterization of habitable planets around nearby stars persist as one of the foremost objectives in contemporary astrophysics. This work investigates the synergistic integration of astrometric and direct imaging techniques by capitalizing on the complementary capabilities of the Closeby Habitable Exoplanet Survey (CHES) and Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO). Planetary brightness and position vary over time due to phase effects and orbital architectures, information that can be precisely provided by CHES's astrometric measurements. By combining the precise orbital constraints from CHES with the imaging capabilities of HWO, we evaluate the improvements in detection efficiency, signal-to-noise ratio and overall planet yield. Completeness is quantified as the fraction of injected planets that are successfully detected, while yields are estimated for various scenarios using terrestrial planet occurrence rates derived from the Kepler dataset. Our results indicate that prior astrometric data significantly enhance detection efficiency. Under the adopted detection limit, our analysis indicates that prior CHES observations can increase completeness by approximately 10% and improve detection efficiency by factors ranging from two to thirty. The findings underscore the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in the search for and characterization of habitable worlds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02818 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stellar properties of HWO targets from Harada et al. (2024) and the astrometric and imaging signals contours. The orange, red, blue circle and black points represent stars with known planets, binary stars, single stars and common targets of CHES, respectively. Left panel: Stellar luminosity versus distance of all targets. The olive solid, green dashed and red dash-dotted line represent α = 1.0, 0.3, 0.1 µas in the s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulated motion and contrast of τ Cet e for 200 days. The solid, dashed and dashed-dotted lines represent planet’s position for I = 0◦ , 60◦ , and 90◦ , respectively. The colorbar indicates logarithmic contrast, while the blue region marks area within the IWA, where detection is not possible. As the detectability of a given planet changes over time, it is essential to assess the impact of orbital ar￾chitectures on … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contrast fluctuation versus with orbital eccen￾tricity and inclination. The eccentricity range is 0 to 0.8, and the inclination range is 0 to 90 degrees. The colorbar presents logarithmic fluctuation between maximum and min￾imum contrast. pacity to retrieve orbital elements and predict optimal observation phases for HWO targets. First, we simulate a planet around each target star, assuming an Earth-mass planet locat… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Instrumental performance curves used in our sim￾ulations. The red solid, blue dashed and green dashed-dotted lines represent core contrast, core throughput and corona￾graphic transmission, respectively. The black lines shows a base contrast value 4 × 10−11 of HWO. 463 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: The overall completeness of every target. The bottom-left sub-panel shows comparison of completeness by direct imaging alone (x-axis) and imaging+astrometry (y-axis). The top-left and bottom-right sub-panels give histogram of completeness in two scenarios. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The detection map for HD 100623A in two observational scenarios. Left panel: Results based solely on the direct imaging method are derived from five observations, each with a single exposure time of 4 hr. Right panel: Results for the synergy between direct imaging and …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Planet occurrence rate versus corresponding host star effective temperature. The blue, orange and green re￾gions represent occurrence rate of planets in optimistic hab￾itable zone, conservative habitable zone, and Earth-like plan￾ets, respectively. Data based on planet…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left panel: The histogram of expected number of detected planets versus planetary semi-major axis based on the low frequency and the optimistic habitable zone model. The orange-crosshatched and blue bars represent expected yields by direct imaging alone and imaging+ast…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    20 Chunhui Bao et al. Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    2024, AJ, 167, 286, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4031

    Bao, C., Ji, J., Tan, D., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 286, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4031

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad4031 2024

  3. [3]

    J., Pascucci, I., Hardegree-Ullman, K

    Bergsten, G. J., Pascucci, I., Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad03ea

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad03ea 2023

  4. [4]

    R., Jones, G

    Borges, S. R., Jones, G. G., & Robinson, T. D. 2024, Astrobiology, 24, 283, doi: 10.1089/ast.2023.0099

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Brown, R. A. 2004, ApJ, 607, 1003, doi: 10.1086/383586

    work page doi:10.1086/383586 2004

  6. [6]

    B., Sheffler, J., et al

    Bruna, M., Cowan, N. B., Sheffler, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 460, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3521

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3521 2023

  7. [7]

    K., et al

    Bryson, S., Kunimoto, M., Kopparapu, R. K., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc418

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abc418 2021

  8. [8]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc86d 2023

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Davidson, J. M. 2011, PASP, 123, 923, doi: 10.1086/661725

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

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

    Morgan, R. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9911, Modeling, Systems Engineering, and Project Management for Astronomy VI, ed. G. Z. Angeli & P. Dierickx, 991119, doi: 10.1117/12.2233913

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2015, AJ, 149, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/131

    Eker, Z., Soydugan, F., Soydugan, E., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/131

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    2020, AJ, 159, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7817

    Ertel, S., Defr` ere, D., Hinz, P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7817

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Feng, F., Tuomi, M., Jones, H. R. A., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa83b4

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    I., et al

    Feng, H.-M., Cao, Z.-H., Lam, M. I., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 045004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad26b6 Gaia Collaboration, Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2015, Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 30, 720, doi: 10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.2015.06.002

    Gao, M., Zhao, G., & Gu, Y. 2015, Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 30, 720, doi: 10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.2015.06.002

    2015

  8. [16]

    2018, PASP, 130, 114403, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aadff1

    Garrett, D., Savransky, D., & Belikov, R. 2018, PASP, 130, 114403, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aadff1

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al

    Gaudi, B. S., Seager, S., Mennesson, B., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.06683, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2001.06683

    2020 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    P., & Burrows, A

    Greco, J. P., & Burrows, A. 2015, ApJ, 808, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/172

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    M., & Cowan, N

    Guimond, C. M., & Cowan, N. B. 2019, AJ, 157, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0f2e

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Ridgway, S. T. 2006, ApJS, 167, 81, doi: 10.1086/507630

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    K., Dressing, C

    Harada, C. K., Dressing, C. D., Kane, S. R., & Ardestani, B. A. 2024, ApJS, 272, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad3e81

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2023, RCETC: Roman Coronagraph Exposure Time

    Hildebrandt, S., Spohn, C., Nemati, B., et al. 2023, RCETC: Roman Coronagraph Exposure Time

    2023

  15. [23]

    C., Ford, E

    Hsu, D. C., Ford, E. B., Ragozzine, D., & Ashby, K. 2019, AJ, 158, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab31ab

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Ford, E

    Hsu, D. C., Ford, E. B., & Terrien, R. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2391

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc444

    Huang, X., Ji, J., Bao, C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc444

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 125015, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0499

    Ji, J., Tan, D., Bao, C., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 125015, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0499

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, Chinese Journal of Space Science, 40, doi: doi:10.11728/cjss2020.05.729

    Ji, J., & Wang, S. 2020, Chinese Journal of Space Science, 40, doi: doi:10.11728/cjss2020.05.729

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, Chinese Journal of Space Science, 44, 193, doi: 10.11728/cjss2024.02.yg03

    Ji, J., Li, H., Zhang, J., et al. 2024, Chinese Journal of Space Science, 44, 193, doi: 10.11728/cjss2024.02.yg03

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 072003, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac77e4

    Ji, J.-H., Li, H.-T., Zhang, J.-B., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 072003, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac77e4

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 4608, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3317

    Jin, S., Ding, X., Wang, S., Dong, Y., & Ji, J. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4608, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3317

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2024, ApJS, 274, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6300

    Jin, S., Jiang, W., & Wu, D.-H. 2024, ApJS, 274, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6300

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    P., Dannert, F., & LIFE Collaboration

    Kammerer, J., Quanz, S. P., Dannert, F., & LIFE Collaboration. 2022, A&A, 668, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243846

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Kane, S. R. 2013, ApJ, 766, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/10

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    Harada, C. K. 2024, AJ, 168, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6a50

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    R., Meshkat, T., & Turnbull, M

    Kane, S. R., Meshkat, T., & Turnbull, M. C. 2018, AJ, 156, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae981

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    J., & Braems, I

    Kasdin, N. J., & Braems, I. 2006, ApJ, 646, 1260, doi: 10.1086/505017

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.05666, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.05666

    Kawata, D., Kawahara, H., Gouda, N., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.05666, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.05666

    2023 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    2020, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 027001, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.6.2.027001

    Soto, G. 2020, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 027001, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.6.2.027001

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 434, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt075

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    S., Alei, E., Quanz, S

    Konrad, B. S., Alei, E., Quanz, S. P., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141964 Synergy of CHES and HWO for detecting habitable planets. 21

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    K., Ramirez, R

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R. M., SchottelKotte, J., et al. 2014, ApJL, 787, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L29

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    K., et al

    Leinert, C., Bowyer, S., Haikala, L. K., et al. 1998, A&AS, 127, 1, doi: 10.1051/aas:1998105

    1998 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Dodkins, R

    Lewis, B., Fitzgerald, M. P., Dodkins, R. H., Davis, K. K., & Lin, J. 2023, AJ, 165, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca761

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Ingraham, P., et al

    Macintosh, B., Graham, J. R., Ingraham, P., et al. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12661, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304215111

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    2017, Icarus, 282, 19, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.09.023

    Mallama, A., Krobusek, B., & Pavlov, H. 2017, Icarus, 282, 19, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.09.023

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12414, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12414

    Mamajek, E., & Stapelfeldt, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.12414, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12414

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    2024, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 035004, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.10.3.035004

    Mennesson, B., Belikov, R., Por, E., et al. 2024, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 035004, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.10.3.035004

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 021220, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.2.021220

    Morgan, R., Savransky, D., Turmon, M., et al. 2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 021220, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.2.021220

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Morgan, R., Savransky, D., Turmon, M., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 1309...

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    D., Pascucci, I., & Apai, D

    Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., & Apai, D. 2015, ApJ, 798, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/112 NASEM. 2021, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s, doi: 10.17226/26141

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Nemati, B. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020:

    2020

  44. [52]

    Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. Lystrup & M. D. Perrin, 114435F, doi: 10.1117/12.2575983

    doi

  45. [53]

    Sheldon, L. J. 2020, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 039002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.6.3.039002

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    D., & Lopez, E

    Pascucci, I., Mulders, G. D., & Lopez, E. 2019, ApJL, 883, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3dac

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    ´A., & Lindegren, L

    Perryman, M., Hartman, J., Bakos, G. ´A., & Lindegren, L. 2014, ApJ, 797, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/14

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    E., Kane, S

    Plavchan, P., Berberian, Jr, J. E., Kane, S. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.02039, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02039

    2024 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Poberezhskiy, I., Luchik, T., Zhao, F., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. Lystrup & M. D. Perrin, 114431V, doi: 10.1...

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    P., Amara, A., Meyer, M

    Quanz, S. P., Amara, A., Meyer, M. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/64

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    P., Ottiger, M., Fontanet, E., et al

    Quanz, S. P., Ottiger, M., Fontanet, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140366

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    D., Fortney, J

    Salvador, A., Robinson, T. D., Fortney, J. J., & Marley, M. S. 2024, ApJL, 969, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad54c5

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    2017, EXOSIMS: Exoplanet Open-Source Imaging Mission

    Savransky, D., Delacroix, C., & Garrett, D. 2017, EXOSIMS: Exoplanet Open-Source Imaging Mission

    2017

  54. [62]

    2016, Journal of Astronomical

    Savransky, D., & Garrett, D. 2016, Journal of Astronomical

    2016

  55. [63]

    Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 2, 011006, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.2.1.011006

    doi

  56. [64]

    J., & Cady, E

    Savransky, D., Kasdin, N. J., & Cady, E. 2010, PASP, 122, 401, doi: 10.1086/652181

    2010 doi

  57. [65]

    Savransky, D., Kasdin, N. J. D., & Belson, B. A. 2009, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7440, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets IV, ed. S. B. Shaklan, 74400B, doi: 10.1117/12.825501

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    2010, ARA&A, 48, 631, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130837

    Seager, S., & Deming, D. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 631, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130837

    2010 doi

  59. [67]

    2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Shaklan, S., McKeithen, D., Lisman, D., & Dumont, P. 2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12680, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 1268010, doi: 10.1117/12.2677793

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    2010, ApJ, 720, 357, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/357

    Shao, M., Catanzarite, J., & Pan, X. 2010, ApJ, 720, 357, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/357

    2010 doi

  61. [69]

    L., Ballard, S., & Johnson, J

    Shields, A. L., Ballard, S., & Johnson, J. A. 2016, PhR, 663, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.10.003

    2016 doi

  62. [70]

    Sobolev, V. V. 1975, Light scattering in planetary atmospheres

    1975

  63. [71]

    C., Latouf, N., Mandell, A

    Stark, C. C., Latouf, N., Mandell, A. M., & Young, A. 2024a, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 014005, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.10.1.014005

    doi

  64. [72]

    C., Roberge, A., Mandell, A., et al

    Stark, C. C., Roberge, A., Mandell, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/149

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    C., Roberge, A., Mandell, A., & Robinson, T

    Stark, C. C., Roberge, A., Mandell, A., & Robinson, T. D. 2014, ApJ, 795, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/122 22 Chunhui Bao et al

    2014 doi

  66. [74]

    C., Belikov, R., Bolcar, M

    Stark, C. C., Belikov, R., Bolcar, M. R., et al. 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 024009, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.2.024009

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    C., Mennesson, B., Bryson, S., et al

    Stark, C. C., Mennesson, B., Bryson, S., et al. 2024b, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 034006, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.10.3.034006

    doi

  68. [76]

    H., et al

    Steiger, S., Pueyo, L., Por, E. H., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 130921W...

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    2024, AJ, 168, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6f01 The LUVOIR Team

    Tan, D., Ji, J., Bao, C., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6f01 The LUVOIR Team. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.06219, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.06219 The Theia Collaboration, Boehm, C., Krone-Martins, A., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1707.01348, doi:...

    2024 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    A., Breckinridge, J., Greene, T

    Traub, W. A., Breckinridge, J., Greene, T. P., et al. 2016, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 2, 011020, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.2.1.011020

    2016 doi

  71. [79]

    W., Stark, C

    Tuchow, N. W., Stark, C. C., & Mamajek, E. 2024, AJ, 167, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad25ec

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    C., Glassman, T., Roberge, A., et al

    Turnbull, M. C., Glassman, T., Roberge, A., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 418, doi: 10.1086/666325

    2012 doi

  73. [81]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  74. [82]

    2024, Chinese Journal of Space Science, 44, 356, doi: 10.11728/cjss2024.02.yg06

    Wang, X., Zhang, J., Li, L., & Guo, C. 2024, Chinese Journal of Space Science, 44, 356, doi: 10.11728/cjss2024.02.yg06

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    K., & Hansen, B

    Zink, J. K., & Hansen, B. M. S. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1246

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.