Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

First unambiguous detection of ammonia in the atmosphere of a planetary mass companion with JWST/MIRI coronagraphs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first unambiguous detection of ammonia in the atmosphere of the planetary-mass companion GJ 504 b, at 12.5 sigma.

desk verdict The first MIR photometry of GJ 504 b is genuinely new and the companion detection is robust, but the 12.5σ NH3 claim rests on a correlation assumption that their own error budget contradicts; the defensible significance is 3σ. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00104 v2 pith:4MNVI6NV submitted 2024-12-30 astro-ph.EP

Mathilde Mâlin , Anthony Boccaletti , Clément Perrot , Pierre Baudoz , Daniel Rouan , Pierre-Olivier Lagage , Rens Waters , Manuel Güdel
show 23 more authors
Thomas Henning Bart Vandenbussche Olivier Absil David Barrado Benjamin Charnay Elodie Choquet Christophe Cossou Camilla Danielski Leen Decin Adrian M. Glauser John Pye Goran Olofsson Alistair Glasse Polychronis Patapis Pierre Royer Silvia Scheithauer Eugene Serabyn Pascal Tremblin Niall Whiteford Ewine F. van Dishoeck Göran Ostlin Tom P. Ray Gillian Wright
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords NH3ammoniaGJ504bdirectlyimagedexoplanetsJWSTMIRIcoronagraphsmid-infraredphotometryExo-REMatmosphericmodelsplanetary-masscompanions
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 claims the first unambiguous detection of ammonia (NH$_3$) in the atmosphere of a directly imaged planetary-mass companion, the roughly 500 K object GJ 504 b. The detection rests on a flux deficit measured in the JWST/MIRI F1065C coronagraphic filter, centered on NH$_3$ absorption, relative to the F1140C continuum filter, and is reported at 12.5 $\sigma$ with a conservative lower limit of 3 $\sigma$. Combining the new mid-infrared photometry with archival near-infrared data in the Exo-REM atmospheric model, the authors derive $T_{\mathrm{eff}} = 512 \pm 10$ K, a radius of $1.08\,R_{\rm Jup}$, and an NH$_3$ volume mixing ratio of $10^{-5.3 \pm 0.07}$. If correct, the result opens a direct observational path to using ammonia as a gravity-sensitive tracer in the coldest directly imaged companions, helping to decide whether such objects are young planets or old brown dwarfs.

What carries the argument

The measurement is carried by the two-filter flux ratio between the F1065C filter, centered at 10.575 microns inside the 10.5 micron ammonia band, and the F1140C filter, a continuum window at 11.30 microns, combined with a large library of previously observed reference stars whose diffraction patterns are subtracted quadrant-by-quadrant with principal component analysis. Photometry is extracted by fitting a coronagraphic point-spread-function model to each reduced image, correcting for mask transmission (0.84, 0.93, and 0.77 in the three filters), and the ammonia signal is the F1065C deficit relative to an Exo-REM model with negligible NH$_3$. The significance quoted as 12.5 sigma treats the two filters' PSF-normalization uncertainties as fully correlated, and including them independently lowers the detection to 3 sigma, which the paper calls a conservative lower limit.

What would settle it

A medium-resolution MIRI/MRS spectrum of GJ 504 b resolving the 10.5 micron ammonia band, or any independent re-reduction that lets the F1065C and F1140C PSF-normalization terms float freely, would settle the claim: a band absent or much weaker than the photometric deficit implies, or a significance dropping to about 3 sigma when the normalization term is included, would overturn the 12.5 sigma ammonia detection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the MIRI four-quadrant phase-mask coronagraphs on JWST, the paper obtains the first mid-infrared photometry of GJ 504 b in three filters, F1065C, F1140C, and F1550C, and reports the detection of ammonia at 12.5 $\sigma$. The signal is the lower flux observed at F1065C, where NH$_3$ absorbs, compared with the continuum at F1140C; the authors express it as $S/N = (F_{\rm no\,NH_3} - F_{\rm obs})/\sigma_{\rm tot}$ relative to the Exo-REM model with negligible NH$_3$ abundance. The best-fit Exo-REM atmosphere has $T_{\mathrm{eff}} = 512 \pm 10$ K, radius $R = 1.08^{+0.04}_{-0.03}\,R_{\rm Jup}$, $\log g = 3.45^{+0.35}_{-0.25}$, metallicity $0.54^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$, and $C/O = 0.70 \pm 0.06$; the measured NH$_3$ mixing ratio of $10^{-5.3 \pm 0.07}$ is at least an order of magnitude below Jupiter's. The paper also notes this is the first unambiguous NH$_3$ detection in a directly imaged planetary-mass companion, with the only previous direct-imaging detection, for 51 Eri b, reported at 2.7 $\sigma$. Because the NH$_3$/N$_2$ ratio is insensitive to atmospheric mixing, the authors argue the NH$_3$ abundance favors a low surface gravity, and thus a planetary-mass rather than brown-dwarf interpretation, while cautioning that the mass remains degenerate.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands or falls on whether the F1065C flux deficit comes from NH3 opacity rather than a cloud, another molecule, or a wavelength-dependent calibration error, plus the assumption that the PSF-normalization errors of the two filters are fully correlated, which is what lifts the conservative 3 sigma to the headline 12.5 sigma.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The MIRI coronagraphic filters, designed around the 10.5 micron NH$_3$ band, can deliver unambiguous ammonia detections in the coldest directly imaged companions.
  • Adding mid-infrared photometry reduces the radius uncertainty of GJ 504 b by at least a factor of three and improves the luminosity estimate by a similar factor.
  • The measured NH$_3$ abundance is consistent with an object of $\log g < 4$, favoring the low-mass, planetary interpretation over a brown-dwarf one, while the authors stop short of confirming the mass.
  • NH$_3$ emerges as a practical gravity diagnostic for cold companions, because the NH$_3$/N$_2$ ratio is insensitive to mixing.
  • The first mid-infrared photometry of GJ 504 b anchors forthcoming JWST spectroscopy of the same object with MIRI/MRS and NIRSpec/IFU.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 12.5 sigma detection survives re-analysis, the same two-filter F1065C/F1140C strategy could be applied to other cold companions as a relatively cheap NH$_3$-based gravity screen before expensive spectroscopy.
  • A natural test is the already-planned MIRI/MRS spectrum: a resolved 10.5 micron NH$_3$ band at the reported strength would confirm the photometric claim, while a null or much weaker band would refute it.
  • The radius of $1.08\,R_{\rm Jup}$ sits slightly below evolutionary-model predictions, and if this persists it may point to gaps in cooling-track models or cloud physics rather than to the ammonia detection itself.
  • Since the NH$_3$ abundance is compared with Jupiter's, similar two-band photometry across a range of temperatures could sharpen empirical constraints on nitrogen chemistry across the T/Y boundary.
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 JWST/MIRI coronagraphic observations of the planetary-mass companion GJ 504 b in the F1065C, F1140C, and F1550C filters. It builds a large reference-star library and applies a quadrant-based PCA subtraction to detect the companion and measure its mid-infrared photometry. Using Exo-REM atmospheric grids, the authors fit the companion's SED, derive updated parameters (Teff = 512 ± 10 K, R = 1.08 RJup), and claim a detection of NH3 at 12.5σ, with a volume mixing ratio of 10^-5.3±0.07. The paper also reports the conservative estimate of 3σ when the full photometric uncertainties are used, and discusses consequences for the age, mass, and formation scenario of GJ 504 b.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this would be the first robust NH3 detection in a directly imaged planetary-mass companion and the first mid-infrared photometry of GJ 504 b, providing a valuable anchor for cold-atmosphere chemistry and for NH3 as a gravity diagnostic. The paper has clear strengths: the companion is detected consistently across many stellar-subtraction methods, the reference-library approach is carefully described, and the authors are transparent about the two significance estimates. However, the headline 'unambiguous' claim rests on a 12.5σ value that is obtained by dropping the PSF-normalization uncertainty, and the attribution to NH3 is tested against only a single atmospheric model. These issues are load-bearing for the title-level claim, even though the underlying data and analysis are of lasting value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The headline significance of 12.5σ is obtained by setting σ_PSFnorm to zero, justified only by the assertion that the NH3 measurement is relative. This assertion is not supported by the paper's own error budget: Section 3.1 reports σ_PSFnorm = 4.1%, 12.6%, and 10.7% in F1065C, F1140C, and F1550C, respectively. If the PSF-normalization errors were fully correlated across filters, their fractional contributions would be equal; the observed factor-of-three spread shows that the normalization uncertainty has a wavelength-dependent component that does not automatically cancel in the F1065C/F1140C ratio. The paper itself states that using the full uncertainties yields S/N = 3σ, so the abstract and title should either quote 3σ as the primary detection significance or provide a proper covariance analysis demonstrating which fraction of σ_PSFnorm cancels. As written, the 'unambiguous' claim is not supported.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2)] The NH3 test is performed against a null hypothesis consisting of the no-NH3 Exo-REM model, and no evidence is shown that the two-filter F1065C/F1140C color cannot be reproduced by variations in cloud properties, metallicity, C/O, or other opacity sources, either within the posterior distribution or with an independent atmospheric model. The discussion in Section 4.2 acknowledges that clouds may affect the derived NH3 abundance but does not quantify the effect. For a claim of an 'unambiguous' first detection, the paper should demonstrate, for example, that a retrieval with free cloud/chemistry parameters or a second atmospheric model cannot fit the measured color without NH3. Without such a test, the attribution of the flux deficit to NH3 remains model-relative.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Fig. F.1] The significance calculation and the quoted NH3 volume-mixing-ratio range are based on a second grid built from the best-fit atmospheric parameters, without propagating the posterior uncertainties in Teff, log g, metallicity, C/O, and radius into the predicted no-NH3 continuum flux. Because those parameters are uncertain (Table 4), the model-predicted F1065C flux used in Eq. (2) has an uncertainty that is not included in σ_tot. The resulting S/N is therefore optimistic even before the PSF-normalization issue, and the 1σ VMR range should be interpreted as conditional on the best-fit continuum model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'proving the first mid-infrared (MIR) images' appears to be a typo; it should read 'providing the first mid-infrared images.'
  2. [Figures 3 and B.4] The legend labels are difficult to read because of repeated filter names and inconsistent spacing in program names (e.g., 'GTO1413' vs. 'GTO 1413'); please use a single, consistent notation and a concise legend.
  3. [Section 3.1] Equations referenced in the text (e.g., 'Eq. 1') are not all explicitly numbered in the provided manuscript, and the symbols σ_PSFnorm and σ_stellarsub are not typeset consistently; please ensure all equations and symbols are defined once and used consistently.
  4. [Appendix C] The comparison of photometric normalization methods would be clearer with a table listing the individual flux values from each method, since the text describes variations of 0.8, 1.3, and 6.9% for stellar subtraction but the corresponding per-method fluxes are not given in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NH3 detection is a forward-model comparison on new MIRI photometry; the 12.5σ versus 3σ difference is an error-correlation assumption, not a by-construction identity.

full rationale

No step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own input. The NH3 signal is defined by Eq. (2) as the difference between an Exo-REM no-NH3 model flux at F1065C and the observed F1065C flux; the observed fluxes in Table 2 are new MIRI measurements, and the model fluxes come from an independent spectral grid. The best-fit parameters used to build the NH3 grid were jointly fit to NIR and MIR photometry, so the null model is not fully independent of the points being tested; however, Table 4 shows the NIR-only fit gives Teff = 509+13/−20 K versus 512+10/−10 K for the NIR+MIR fit, so the continuum is anchored by independent literature photometry and the NH3 deficit is not forced by construction. The paper also reports the conservative 3σ result using full uncertainties and only promotes the 12.5σ value after assuming PSF-normalization errors cancel in a relative measurement (Section 3.2); the measured scatter of 4.1% in F1065C versus 12.6% in F1140C (Section 3.1) makes that assumption debatable, but this is a statistical-correlation and calibration concern, not a circular identity. Self-citations (Exo-REM models, Boccaletti et al. 2024, Mâlin et al. 2024, Danielski et al. 2018) supply reduction and modeling machinery with external validation and use; they do not import a uniqueness theorem or forbid alternative interpretations. The paper explicitly acknowledges model-relative limitations (log g unreliable with few photometric points; deeper analysis with different atmospheric models out of scope, Section 4.2), consistent with a forward-model inference from real photometry rather than a circular prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest on the Exo-REM forward model and on a two-filter photometric color. The main free parameters are the atmospheric grid parameters and the NH3 abundance, all fit to a small number of photometric points. No new physical entities are introduced; the paper invents nothing beyond the fitted parameters and model assumptions listed above.

free parameters (8)
  • Effective temperature T_eff = 512 ± 10 K
    Fit to NIR and MIR photometry with the Exo-REM grid.
  • Surface gravity log g = 3.45 +0.35/-0.25
    Fit to photometry; weakly constrained by continuum points.
  • Metallicity [M/H] = 0.54 +0.09/-0.11
    Fit to photometry.
  • C/O ratio = 0.70 ± 0.06
    Fit to photometry.
  • Radius R = 1.08 +0.04/-0.03 R_Jup
    Fit as a scaling factor to the photometry.
  • NH3 volume mixing ratio = 10^-5.3 ± 0.07
    Fit to the F1065C/F1140C color using a second Exo-REM grid with the other parameters fixed.
  • Number of PCA components = chosen to maximize S/N
    Free data-reduction parameter; different choices give consistent companion detection.
  • PSF x/y position shifts = optimized per filter
    Two free parameters in the Nelder-Mead PSF fit for each filter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Exo-REM is an accurate representation of GJ 504 b's atmosphere (1D self-consistent, cloud microphysics, disequilibrium chemistry, opacity line lists)
    All parameter and NH3 inferences are made relative to this model grid (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption The F1065C flux deficit relative to the no-NH3 model is caused by NH3 opacity and not by other molecules, clouds, or calibration offsets
    Detection rests on a two-filter color interpreted as NH3 (Section 3.2, Eq. 2).
  • ad hoc to paper PSF normalization uncertainties are fully correlated between F1065C and F1140C, justifying their removal from the relative detection S/N
    This assumption transforms the conservative 3σ estimate into the headline 12.5σ (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption The reference star library PCA subtraction does not bias relative photometry between filters
    Planet PSF is modeled and injected before PCA to mitigate self-subtraction, but residual per-filter bias is not quantified (Sections 2.4 and 3.1).
  • standard math Standard statistical and numerical methods (Bayesian fitting with species, Nelder-Mead minimization, chi-square)
    Used for parameter estimation and NH3 abundance intervals (Section 3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First unambiguous detection of ammonia in the atmosphere of a planetary mass companion with JWST/MIRI coronagraphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4MNVI6NV

@misc{pith2026250100104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First unambiguous detection of ammonia in the atmosphere of a planetary mass companion with JWST/MIRI coronagraphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4MNVI6NV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00104}
}
read the original abstract

The newly accessible mid-infrared (MIR) window offered by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) for exoplanet imaging is expected to provide valuable information to characterize their atmospheres. In particular, coronagraphs on board the JWST Mid-InfraRed instrument (MIRI) are capable of imaging the coldest directly imaged giant planets at the wavelengths where they emit most of their flux. The MIRI coronagraphs have been specially designed to detect the NH3 absorption around 10.5 microns, which has been predicted by atmospheric models. We aim to assess the presence of NH3 while refining the atmospheric parameters of one of the coldest companions detected by directly imaging GJ 504 b. Its mass is still a matter of debate and depending on the host star age estimate, the companion could either be placed in the brown dwarf regime or in the young Jovian planet regime. We present an analysis of MIRI coronagraphic observations of the GJ 504 system. We took advantage of previous observations of reference stars to build a library of images and to perform a more efficient subtraction of the stellar diffraction pattern. We detected the presence of NH3 at 12.5 sigma in the atmosphere, in line with atmospheric model expectations for a planetary-mass object and observed in brown dwarfs within a similar temperature range. The best-fit model with Exo-REM provides updated values of its atmospheric parameters, yielding a temperature of Teff = 512 K and radius of R = 1.08 RJup. These observations demonstrate the capability of MIRI coronagraphs to detect NH3 and to provide the first MIR observations of one of the coldest directly imaged companions. Overall, NH3 is a key molecule for characterizing the atmospheres of cold planets, offering valuable insights into their surface gravity. These observations provide valuable information for spectroscopic observations planned with JWST.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00104 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Color-magnitude diagram of the field brown dwarfs (M, L, and T dwarfs are shown in color), objects with confirmed youth or low grav￾ity, and well-known directly imaged exoplanets (photometry from the UltracoolSheet, Best et al. 2024). GJ 504 b is at a unique position be￾tween the sequence of young low-gravity objects and old T-type brown dwarfs. at the location of their formation, meaning that the planet is ex￾pecte… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Coronagraphic images of GJ 504 in each filter (F1065, F1140, and F1550) after the subtraction of an optimized-reference star. The corona￾graphic center is illustrated with the small star in green and GJ 504 b is the bright source in the upper right corner, as indicated by the arrow in the F1065C image (first panel). An asinh color scale is used to show more details. Images in linear scale are available in the append… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contrast curve at 5σ computed for each filter image. All curves are computed using the 4Q-PCA stellar subtraction method. The plain lines correspond to the subtraction with the entire library and the dashed lines correspond to the case of using only the reference star from the GTO 1413 program. The shaded regions correspond to the inner work￾ing angle of the coronagraphs. 3. Atmospheric characterization 3.1. Extract… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Exo-REM best-fit model (black curve) and the lighter black models come from the posterior distribution from the best fit. The points represent the photometric values from VLT/SPHERE (green), Suburu/HiCIAO (purple), LBTI/LMIRcam (orange), and Subaru/ICRS (blue). The MIR…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Abundance of the NH3 according to Exo-REM models as a func￾tion of the Te f f for several values of logg. The dashed lines represent the expectation for an atmosphere with a super-solar metallicity, and the plain line with a solar metallicity. a vmr of 10−5.3±0.07 for …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Isochrones from 20 Myr to 4 Gyr: evolution of the luminosity of a planet (log scale and relative to the Sun’s luminosity) as a function of the radius (top panel) or the temperature (bottom panel) of a planet according to ATMO evolutionary models. Article number, page 7…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Understanding eccentric temperate giants: an in-depth study of the architecture and stellar obliquity of the TOI-2134 system

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Updated analysis of TOI-2134 with new TESS sectors and spectra confirms an inner mini-Neptune and outer eccentric sub-Saturn, measures their masses and radii, and reports a 59 degree obliquity for the outer planet via...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adande, G. R. & Ziurys, L. M. 2012, ApJ, 744, 194

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    I., Reiners, A., & Solanki, S

    Anderson, R. I., Reiners, A., & Solanki, S. K. 2010, A & A, 522, A81

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    2023, Nature, 624, 263

    Barrado, D., Mollière, P., Patapis, P., et al. 2023, Nature, 624, 263

    2023

  4. [4]

    2015, A&A, 582, A83

    Baudino, J.-L., Bézard, B., Boccaletti, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A83

    2015

  5. [5]

    Best, W. M. J., Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., et al. 2024, Zenodo

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Best, W. M. J., Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., & Dupuy, T. J. 2021, The Astronom- ical Journal, 161, 42

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Best, W. M. J., Magnier, E. A., Liu, M. C., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 234, 1

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    2021, A&A, 646, A15

    Blain, D., Charnay, B., & Bézard, B. 2021, A&A, 646, A15

    work page 2021

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    2022, A&A, 667, A165

    Boccaletti, A., Cossou, C., Baudoz, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A165

    2022

  2. [10]

    2024, A&A, 686, A33

    Boccaletti, A., Mâlin, M., Baudoz, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A33

    2024

  3. [11]

    2000, Icarus, 143, 2

    Bodenheimer, P. 2000, Icarus, 143, 2

    2000

  4. [12]

    2018, A&A, 618, A63

    Bonnefoy, M., Perraut, K., Lagrange, A.-M., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A63

    2018

  5. [13]

    2023, Zenodo

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, Zenodo

    2023

  6. [14]

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

    Carter, A. L., Hinkley, S., Kammerer, J., et al. 2023, ApJ Letters, 951, L20

    2023

  7. [15]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 172

    Charnay, B., Bézard, B., Baudino, J.-L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 172

    2018

  8. [16]

    2018, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 156, 276

    Danielski, C., Baudino, J.-L., Lagage, P.-O., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 156, 276

    2018

  9. [17]

    R., Liu, M

    Deacon, N. R., Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 119 Di Mauro, M. P., Reda, R., Mathur, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 93

    2014

  10. [18]

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

    2013

  11. [19]

    Dupuy, T. J. & Liu, M. C. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 201, 19 D’Orazi, V ., Desidera, S., Gratton, R. G., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A19

    2012

  12. [20]

    & Chini, R

    Fuhrmann, K. & Chini, R. 2015, ApJ, 806, 163

    2015

  13. [21]

    2024, A&A, 689, A185

    Godoy, N., Choquet, E., Serabyn, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A185

    2024

  14. [22]

    D., Kuzuhara, M., et al

    Janson, M., Brandt, T. D., Kuzuhara, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, L4

    2013

  15. [23]

    2013, ApJ, 774, 11 Kühnle, H., Patapis, P., Mollière, P., et al

    Kuzuhara, M., Tamura, M., Kudo, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 11 Kühnle, H., Patapis, P., Mollière, P., et al. 2024, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:2410.10933]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    2007, ApJ, 660, 770

    Lafreniere, D., Marois, C., Doyon, R., Nadeau, D., & Artigau, E. 2007, ApJ, 660, 770

    2007

  17. [25]

    2016, in SPIE Proceedings, Edin- burgh, United Kingdom, 99045K

    Lajoie, C.-P., Soummer, R., Pueyo, L., et al. 2016, in SPIE Proceedings, Edin- burgh, United Kingdom, 99045K

    2016

  18. [26]

    C., Dupuy, T

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

    2016

  19. [27]

    2019, Annual Review of A&A, 57, 617

    Madhusudhan, N. 2019, Annual Review of A&A, 57, 617

    2019

  20. [28]

    S., Fortney, J

    Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., & Lissauer, J. J. 2007, ApJ, 655, 541

    2007

  21. [29]

    S., Saumon, D., Visscher, C., et al

    Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Visscher, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 85

    2021

  22. [30]

    A., Forshay, P., et al

    Marston, A., Shaw, R. A., Forshay, P., et al. 2018, in Observatory Operations:

    2018

  23. [31]

    C., Carter, A

    Matthews, E. C., Carter, A. L., Pathak, P., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 789 Mollière, P., Molyarova, T., Bitsch, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 74 Mâlin, M., Boccaletti, A., Perrot, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A316

    2024

  24. [32]

    & Mead, R

    Nelder, J. & Mead, R. 1965, The Computer Journal, 7, 308

    1965

  25. [33]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 36

    Pacetti, E., Turrini, D., Schisano, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 36

    2022

  26. [34]

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

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, Proceedings of the SPIE, V olume 9143, 11 pp

    2014

  27. [35]

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

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

    2020

  28. [36]

    C., Kammerer, J., et al

    Rebollido, I., Stark, C. C., Kammerer, J., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 69

    2024

  29. [37]

    2000, PASP, 112, 1479

    Rouan, D., Riaud, P., Boccaletti, A., Clénet, Y ., & Labeyrie, A. 2000, PASP, 112, 1479

    2000

  30. [38]

    C., Best, W

    Sanghi, A., Liu, M. C., Best, W. M. J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 63

    2023

  31. [39]

    C., Munn, J

    Schneider, A. C., Munn, J. A., Vrba, F. J., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 103

    2023

  32. [40]

    2020, A&A, 633, A33

    Shibata, S., Helled, R., & Ikoma, M. 2020, A&A, 633, A33

    2020

  33. [41]

    J., Morley, C

    Skemer, A. J., Morley, C. V ., Zimmerman, N. T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 166

    2016

  34. [42]

    2023, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:2307.057, aDS Bib- code: 2023ascl.soft07057S Suárez, G

    Stolker, T. 2023, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:2307.057, aDS Bib- code: 2023ascl.soft07057S Suárez, G. & Metchev, S. 2022, MNRAS, stac1205

    2023

  35. [43]

    Taylor, F. W. & Atreya, S. K. 2004, Jupiter. The Planet, Satellites and Magneto- sphere

    2004

  36. [44]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 40

    Turrini, D., Schisano, E., Fonte, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 40

    2021

  37. [45]

    2021, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2101.003

    Wang, J., Kulikauskas, M., & Blunt, S. 2021, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2101.003

    2021

  38. [46]

    2000, A&A Supplement Series, 143, 9

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&A Supplement Series, 143, 9

    2000

  39. [47]

    L., et al

    Whiteford, N., Glasse, A., Chubb, K. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1375

    2023

  40. [48]

    Zahnle, K. J. & Marley, M. S. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 41 Öberg, K. I., Murray-Clay, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, ApJ, 743, L16 Šubjak, J., Lodieu, N., Kabáth, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A10 1 Department of Physics & Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charl...

    2014

  41. [49]

    Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, UK 20 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Dr.,Pasadena, CA 91109, USA 21 Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, CNRS, CEA, Maison de la Simula- tion, 91191, Gif-sur-Yvette, France 22 Department of Astrophysics, America...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.