Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 132 references

HD 206893 B at High Spectral Resolution with the Keck Planet Imager and Characterizer (KPIC)

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first high-resolution spectral characterization of HD 206893 B measures a 22.7-Jupiter-mass L/T companion with near-solar C/O.

desk verdict Solid first high-res detection and C/O for HD 206893 B, but the headline Teff/mass/C/O are conditional on a post hoc prior truncation that the data alone don't justify. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13917 v2 pith:FGKBED7O submitted 2025-01-23 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Ben Sappey , Quinn Konopacky , Clarissa R. Do O , Travis Barman , Jean-Baptiste Ruffio , Jason Wang , Christopher A. Theissen , Luke Finnerty
show 33 more authors
Jerry Xuan Katelyn Hortsman Dimitri Mawet Yapeng Zhang Julie Inglis Nicole L. Wallack Aniket Sanghi Ashley Baker Randall Bartos Geoffrey A. Blake Charlotte Z. Bond Benjamin Calvin Sylvain Cetre Jacques-Robert Delorme Greg Doppmann Daniel Echeverri Michael P. Fitzgerald Chih-Chun Hsu Nemanja Jovanovic Joshua Liberman Ronald A. Lopez Emily C. Martin Evan Morris Jacklyn Pezzato-Rovner Caprice L. Phillips Garreth Ruane Tobias Schofield Andrew Skemer Taylor Venenciano J. Kent Wallace Ji Wang Peter Wizinowich Yinzi Xin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords high-resolutionspectroscopydirectlyimagedcompanionL/Ttransitionbrowndwarfcarbon-to-oxygenratioorbitalstabilityKeckPlanetImagerandCharacterizerPHOENIXatmospheremodels
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 to have made the first high-resolution spectral characterization of HD 206893 B, a dusty, exceptionally red L/T-transition substellar companion in a system that also hosts an inner planetary-mass companion. By fitting two epochs of KPIC K-band spectra (resolving power about 35,000) with PHOENIX atmosphere models in a forward model that handles companion light and diffracted starlight together, the authors detect the companion at more than $8\sigma$ and derive an effective temperature of $1634^{+72}_{-38}$ K, a surface gravity of $\log g = 4.55^{+0.17}_{-0.22}$, and a carbon-to-oxygen ratio of $0.57 \pm 0.02$. Those values, fed into substellar evolution tracks, give a mass of $22.7^{+2.5}_{-1.7}$ Jupiter masses, an age of $112^{+36}_{-22}$ Myr, and a radius of $1.11 \pm 0.03$ Jupiter radii. The new radial velocities also tighten the orbit, and stability calculations favor low-eccentricity, coplanar configurations for the two companions. If correct, this adds a resolved-line data point to the trend that massive directly imaged companions have near-solar C/O ratios, while leaving both core-accretion and disk-fragmentation formation paths open.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a forward-model likelihood, implemented in the breads code, that simultaneously fits the companion spectrum and the diffracted starlight, with continuum and stellar speckle terms marginalized analytically. The atmospheric templates come from a custom PHOENIX grid built for L/T-transition objects, with fixed cloud parameters: 1-micron grains, a cloud deck at $10^6$ dyne cm$^{-2}$, and vertical mixing $K_{zz}=10^8$, while effective temperature and surface gravity range from 1200 to 2000 K and $\log g=3.5$ to 5.0. Detection is confirmed by cross-correlating the data against a broadened model template; the parameters are then mapped out with an MCMC over the interpolated grid. The same grid, plus a follow-up grid varying carbon and oxygen at fixed $T_{\rm eff}=1600$ K and $\log g=4.5$, produces the C/O measurement.

What would settle it

Re-run the same forward-model MCMC on the two KPIC epochs with a PHOENIX grid in which cloud particle size, cloud deck pressure, and $K_{zz}$ are free parameters, or with a high-resolution free retrieval that fits the CO line profiles without assuming the fixed grid; if $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$, or C/O move by more than the quoted $1\sigma$ uncertainties, the central result is model-dependent. A second concrete check is an additional radial velocity point in 2024-2025, which should separate the moderately eccentric joint-fit orbit from the near-circular orbits required for 1 Gyr stability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that resolved CO and H2O lines in the K band can be used to pin down the atmosphere and orbit of HD 206893 B, which previous low-resolution work could only loosely constrain. Detecting the companion at >8 $\sigma$ in two epochs, the authors report $T_{\rm eff}=1634^{+72}_{-38}$ K and $\log g=4.55^{+0.17}_{-0.22}$ from a custom PHOENIX grid, and a C/O ratio of $0.57 \pm 0.02$ from a grid computed at fixed temperature and gravity. Bulk properties from the Chabrier et al. (2023) evolution tracks give a $22.7^{+2.5}_{-1.7}$ Jupiter-mass companion with radius $1.11 \pm 0.03$ Jupiter radii and age $112^{+36}_{-22}$ Myr. A joint orbit fit including two new KPIC radial velocities yields a moderately eccentric orbit for B, but the 1 Gyr stability analysis strongly prefers near-circular orbits for both B and c and co-planarity between them. The paper also shows that the high-resolution CO line shapes reject the low surface gravity and inflated radius favored by an unconstrained low-resolution retrieval.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the custom PHOENIX grid, with its fixed 1-micron grains, cloud deck at $10^6$ dyne cm$^{-2}$, fixed $K_{zz}=10^8$, and solar metallicity, is a faithful enough description of HD 206893 B's cloudy L/T-transition atmosphere that the quoted temperature, gravity, and C/O are not biased by the cloud prescription.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HD 206893 B becomes one of the few directly imaged companions with resolved-line atmospheric parameters, with a measured C/O of $0.57 \pm 0.02$ consistent with the tentative trend that companions above roughly four Jupiter masses have near-solar C/O.
  • The two KPIC radial velocities, combined with archival astrometry, update the orbit; the joint fit allows an eccentricity near 0.27 for B, while 1 Gyr stability selects eccentricities below 0.1 for both B and c and favors coplanarity between them.
  • The preferred temperature and gravity, together with Chabrier et al. (2023) evolution tracks, give a mass of $22.7^{+2.5}_{-1.7}$ Jupiter masses, consistent with the independently measured dynamical mass of about 26 Jupiter masses.
  • The high-resolution CO line shapes strongly reject, with a Bayes factor of 0.00028, the low-gravity, large-radius solution preferred by the unconstrained low-resolution retrieval, indicating that resolved lines break the gravity-radius degeneracy.
  • The measured C/O ratio alone cannot rule out either core accretion or disk fragmentation as the formation pathway; the paper identifies future 3-5 micron sulfur measurements as the discriminating test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the fixed cloud prescription in the custom PHOENIX grid is the dominant systematic, the C/O value is the most vulnerable parameter because it was computed on a small grid at one temperature and gravity; re-fitting the same KPIC data with C/O, cloud particle size, and cloud deck free would reveal how much of the result is model-driven.
  • A single additional radial velocity point in 2024 or 2025 would have strong leverage: with a roughly 25-35 year orbital period, it should discriminate the moderately eccentric joint-fit solution from the near-circular orbits required for 1 Gyr stability.
  • The paper's own low-resolution retrievals place the cloud-model mismatch mainly in J- and H-band extinction; a testable extension is to fit the KPIC K-band lines and the GPI K-band continuum in one joint model with a single cloud prescription and check whether temperature and gravity remain consistent.
  • If the near-solar C/O of B is confirmed alongside the host star's reported super-solar C/O, the system may hint that B accreted its gas inside the carbon-rich ice line or that the host C/O measurement carries a systematic offset; the paper does not draw that conclusion itself.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. Using two epochs of Keck/KPIC K-band spectroscopy (R ~ 35,000), the paper reports a >8 sigma detection of the substellar companion HD 206893 B via cross-correlation with custom PHOENIX atmospheric models. A forward-modeling MCMC analysis yields a bimodal posterior in effective temperature with peaks near 1600 K and 1900 K; after truncating the Teff prior at 1750 K based on an evolutionary-model radius argument, the authors quote Teff = 1634+72-38 K, log g = 4.55+0.17-0.22, C/O = 0.57 +/- 0.02, and, using CBPD23 evolutionary models, a mass of 22.7+2.5-1.7 M_Jup, age 112+36-22 Myr, and radius 1.11 +/- 0.03 R_Jup. They also fit the orbit including two KPIC radial velocities and analyze the system's long-term stability, concluding that stable 1 Gyr configurations are predominantly low-eccentricity and coplanar. The paper includes a petitRADTRANS free retrieval of archival GPI spectra, which returns a substantially lower log g and larger radii/grain sizes than the adopted grid.

Significance. The paper provides the first high-resolution spectroscopic characterization of HD 206893 B and a benchmark comparison for L/T-transition companions with an independent dynamical mass anchor. The two-epoch detection is robust (SNR 9.8 and 12.7) and the full-grid evolutionary-model mass (27.4+5.9-5.4 M_Jup) agrees with the dynamical mass from Hinkley et al. (2023), lending credibility to the modeling framework. The C/O measurement, if systematics were quantified, would be a valuable addition to the trend of >4 M_Jup companions having near-solar C/O. However, the headline parameter values are conditional on a post-hoc truncation of the temperature prior and on fixed cloud parameters that are not independently validated; the paper's own free retrieval suggests this assumption may be violated. The limited-prior retrieval in Section 6 therefore cannot serve as independent confirmation. The results are significant but require a presentation that fully exposes these model dependencies.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.5] The truncation of the Teff prior to <1750 K is a post-hoc decision based on evolutionary-model radii, and it directly conditions the headline results. The full-grid MCMC (Figure 3) shows a clear second mode at Teff ~ 1900 K, log g ~ 4.8, and Section 5.4's GPI grid search finds 1900 K, log g = 5.0 and 2000 K, log g = 5.0 to be equally good fits to the low-resolution data. The authors reject this mode because the implied radius of 0.69 R_Jup is deemed unphysical using CBPD23 models, but those same models are later used in Section 7 to derive the quoted mass (22.7 M_Jup), age, and radius. This circularity is not merely cosmetic: the C/O grid in Section 5.6 is computed at the truncated solution (1600 K, log g = 4.5), so the C/O measurement is also conditional on this prior choice. I recommend that the abstract and conclusions present both modes and clearly label the 22.7 M_Jup solution as prior-dependent, or that a joint fit including a physically motivated mass-radius prior be performed.
  2. [Section 6] The petitRADTRANS free retrieval on the full GPI JHK spectrum returns log g = 2.78+0.22-0.23, radius = 2.16+0.02-0.04 R_Jup, and Fe/MgSiO3 grain sizes of ~28-48 um (Table 3), which are inconsistent with the adopted PHOENIX grid parameters (a0 = 1 um, PGS = 10^6 dyne/cm2, Kzz = 10^8; Section 5.2). The authors then run a second retrieval with priors confined to +/-2 sigma of the forward-model posteriors (Table 4), which by construction returns log g ~ 4.5 and radius ~ 1.2 R_Jup. This is a consistency check, not an independent validation, and it does not address the possibility that the fixed cloud prescription biases the forward-model Teff/log g/C/O. The paper should either propagate the systematic uncertainty from the cloud model choice into the quoted parameters or explicitly state that all reported values assume that specific cloud prescription.
  3. [Section 5.6] The C/O ratio is quoted as 0.57 +/- 0.02 with 'only accounting for statistical uncertainties,' as stated in the abstract. This is misleading because the value is derived at the fixed (and prior-dependent) Teff = 1600 K, log g = 4.5, and assumes solar metallicity and the fixed cloud parameters. Given the bimodal temperature posterior and the retrieval's preference for different cloud properties, the systematic uncertainty on C/O is likely to be much larger than 0.02. A quantitative systematic error budget, or at least a clear statement of which assumptions dominate, is required before this measurement can be used in the formation-trend analysis.
  4. [Section 5.4] The low-resolution GPI fit does not uniquely favor the low-temperature branch: the grid search lists Teff = 1900 K, log g = 5.0; 2000 K, log g = 5.0; and 1600 K, log g = 4.5 as equally good fits (Figure 4). The text in Section 5.5 says the higher-temperature solution is 'ruled out,' but the data alone do not rule it out; only the evolutionary-model radius argument does. This wording should be corrected to reflect that the choice between branches is a modeling prior, not a data-driven result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.6] In the sentence comparing the C/O-fit radial velocity to the full posterior, 'in 5.2' should refer to Section 5.3 or 5.5, since Section 5.2 describes the model grid rather than the MCMC posterior.
  2. [Abstract / Conclusion] The Abstract quotes a detection at '>8 sigma' while the Conclusion states '>10 sigma'; please make these consistent, or clarify that the former refers to each epoch and the latter to the combined dataset.
  3. [Table 3] The caption of Table 3 says 'Parameters used for GPI K-band petitRADTRANS free retrieval' but the table includes columns for the J-, H-, and K-band fit as well; please update the caption to describe all columns.
  4. [References] The reference list contains duplicates: Finnerty et al. 2022 appears twice, and Hsu et al. 2021 appears twice; these should be merged.
  5. [General] The units 'cm s-2 dex' for log g are nonstandard; use 'dex' throughout the text and tables.
  6. [Section 8.1] The 1 Gyr stability analysis finds only 0.8% of orbital draws stable, and the stable configurations have semi-major axes and eccentricities that are not the median values from the joint fit. The discussion should state more prominently that the current orbital solution is only marginally stable at the system age, rather than implying that coplanar low-eccentricity configurations are strongly favored by the data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No constructional circularity; the headline Teff/log g/C/O are data-anchored, and the temperature-prior truncation is an acknowledged Bayesian modeling choice rather than a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The central detection and C/O measurement are not circular: the KPIC spectra are compared against PHOENIX atmospheric model grids through the breads forward model, and the detection significance is measured against a background trace with the companion CCF peak well above zero. The Teff/log g inference is a Bayesian MCMC against model spectra, and the quoted values are data-driven within the chosen priors. The temperature prior truncation at 1750 K in Section 5.5 is the closest thing to a self-referential step: it is motivated by the radius implied by the 1900 K solution being judged unphysical using CBPD23 evolutionary tracks with literature age/mass from Hinkley et al. (2023), and the same CBPD23 tracks are later used in Section 7 to map the truncated posterior to mass/age. This is a modeling choice and a consistency loop, not a constructional circularity: the truncating input uses external literature mass/age (155 Myr, 26.2 MJup), not the paper's own final outputs (112 Myr, 22.7 MJup), and the full-grid posterior alternative (27.4 MJup, 1774 K) is explicitly reported and remains consistent with the dynamical mass. The custom PHOENIX grid follows prior work by co-authors (Brock et al. 2021; Barman et al. 2011), but this is an externally published, physically parameterized model grid that is cross-checked against archival GPI spectra and an independent petitRADTRANS retrieval; it is not an unverified self-citation used to forbid alternatives. No equation in the paper reduces a prediction to its inputs by construction, and the paper transparently notes the truncation in Table 6 as a limitation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the adequacy of the custom PHOENIX grid and the breads likelihood, plus evolutionary tracks for mass and age. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The paper's own retrieval results show model disagreement, so the fixed cloud parameters and solar metallicity assumption are the main unvalidated inputs carrying the derived values.

free parameters (5)
  • Teff prior upper bound = 1750 K
    Chosen post hoc as a local minimum in the bimodal posterior (Section 5.5) to exclude the 1900 K, log g = 4.8 solution; shifts Teff, log g, mass, and age quoted in the abstract.
  • Cloud particle size a0 = 1 micron
    Fixed in custom PHOENIX grid (Section 5.2) following Brock et al. 2021; the paper's petitRADTRANS retrieval prefers 28 to 48 micron grains.
  • Cloud deck pressure PGS = 10^6 dyne/cm2
    Fixed to create J/H band extinction (Section 5.2), informed by Hoch et al. 2022, not fit to HD 206893 B.
  • Eddy diffusion coefficient Kzz = 10^8
    Fixed disequilibrium chemistry vertical mixing (Section 5.2), informed by Brock et al. 2021.
  • C/O retrieval grid anchor = Teff=1600 K, log g=4.5, solar metallicity
    C/O grid generated at fixed atmospheric parameters (Section 5.6), so the quoted 0.57 +/- 0.02 includes only statistical uncertainty, not model or metallicity systematics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PHOENIX 1D self-consistent radiative transfer with hydrostatic, chemical, and radiative-convective equilibrium describes the companion atmosphere.
    Invoked in Section 5.2; if L/T transition cloud or disequilibrium chemistry is mis-modeled, all retrieved parameters shift.
  • domain assumption The custom cloud prescription from Brock et al. 2021 and Barman et al. 2011 applies to HD 206893 B without re-fitting.
    Cloud grain size, deck pressure, and Kzz are fixed using prior brown dwarf modeling rather than fit to this object's spectra, and the paper's own retrieval disagrees with these choices.
  • domain assumption The breads forward-model likelihood with uncorrelated Gaussian noise and a 5-node spline continuum fully captures stellar speckle chromaticity.
    Adopted from Ruffio et al. 2019 in Section 4.2; residual fringing or correlated noise would bias the companion continuum and line shapes.
  • domain assumption CBPD23 substellar evolutionary tracks map Teff and log g to mass, age, and radius for this object.
    Used in Section 7 to derive the quoted mass, age, and radius; the radius argument used to truncate the temperature prior also relies on these tracks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HD 206893 B at High Spectral Resolution with the Keck Planet Imager and Characterizer (KPIC)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FGKBED7O

@misc{pith2026250113917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HD 206893 B at High Spectral Resolution with the Keck Planet Imager and Characterizer (KPIC)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FGKBED7O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13917}
}
abstract

We present an atmospheric characterization and orbital analysis of HD 206893 B, an exceptionally red, L/T-transition substellar companion in a multiplanetary system, via Keck Planet Imager and Characterizer (KPIC) high-resolution (R $\sim$ 35,000) K-band spectroscopy. Using PHOENIX atmospheric models in a forward-model framework that fits the spectrum of the companion and diffracted starlight simultaneously, we detect HD 206893 B at $>8\sigma$ significance via cross-correlation in two epochs. We find an effective temperature for the companion of $1634^{+72}_{-38}$ K and a log(g) of $4.55^{+0.17}_{-0.22}$. Only accounting for statistical uncertainties, we measure the carbon-oxygen ratio (C/O) of this companion to be $0.57 \pm 0.02$, or near-solar while assuming solar metallicity. The C/O ratio we measure fits the tentative trend of $>4 M_{Jup}$ companions having near-solar C/O ratios while less massive companions have greater-than-solar C/O ratios. Using substellar evolution models, we find an age of $112^{+36}_{-22}$ Myr, a mass of $22.7^{+2.5}_{-1.7} M_{Jup}$, and a radius of $1.11 \pm 0.03 R_{Jup}$ for this companion. We also use KPIC radial velocity data to fit the orbit of HD 206893 B and analyze the orbital stability of this system. We find that the orbital stability is relatively independent of the mass of HD 206893 B, and favors an orbital configuration where B and its interior planetary companion, HD 206893 c, are co-planar. The measured C/O ratio coupled with the current architecture of the system cannot rule out a core accretion scenario, nor a disk fragmentation scenario regarding the formation pathway of HD 206893 B.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13917 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cross-correlation functions (CCFs) with the custom PHOENIX atmospheric model using the methodology described in §4.2. The model is selected from a linear interpolation of a fixed model grid described in §5.2 and has an effective temperature of 1600K with a surface gravity of log g = 4.8. The model is then spin-broadened to the highest likelihood value, 12 km s−1 incorporating both instrumental broadening, expected t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 1D extracted spectra (red) from KPIC, Fiber 2, with the fiber located at the position of the planet. The best fit PHOENIX stellar plus planet model is shown in purple, with the best-fit planet model plotted separately in blue. The best fit star + planet model is built from a linear combination of the stellar spectrum, taken from our exposures of the host star alone, and the planet model described in Section 5.2.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Corner plot for HD 206893 B showing effective temperature, surface gravity, v sin i, and RV using the full PHOENIX model grid and the KPIC K-band spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GPI IFS K-band Data (1.95–2.30 µm), shown with shaded uncertainties representing the 1 − σ envelope, with the three best fit broadened custom PHOENIX models. All three models fit the data well and are similar to one an￾other despite the 400 K variation and 0.5 dex chan…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Full GPI IFS Spectrum (J-band: 1.114 − 1.350 µm, H-band: 1.495 − 1.797 µm, K-band: 1.886 − 2.396 µm) of HD 206893 B. The 1−σ uncertainty envelope is shown in the matching shaded color. The best-fit PHOENIX-ACES K-band models are plotted and scaled to match peak flux in…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Corner plot for Forward modeling results of KPIC Spectrum of HD 206893 B. We vary the effective temperature, surface gravity, v sin i, and RV. In this corner plot, we limit the prior space from 1200 - 1750 K, motivated by our analysis of the GPI LRS best-fit model and …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: C/O ratio fit using PHOENIX models with Teff = 1600 and log g = 4.5. constraints to the strong atmospheric reddening, we also perform a free retrieval on the GPI J-,H-, and K-band spectra simultaneously using the fast radiative trans￾fer code petitRADTRANS (Molli`ere e…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gemini Planet Imager K-band data with the spectra generated by the maximum likelihood values from petitRAD￾TRANS disequilibrium chemistry free retrievals and the best fit custom Phoenix models. Model parameters are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: We plot the GPI J-band, H-band, and K-band spectra from Ward-Duong et al. 2021 along with the best-fit retrieval model from petitRADTRANS including all 3 spectral bands. In addition, we show the best-fit models from GPI retrievals using only one spectral band at a time…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a): Interpolated age and mass distributions from CBPD23 evolutionary tracks using the full posterior distribution from forward modeling effective temperature and surface gravity with PHOENIX atmospheric models. The bimodal mass distri￾bution corresponds to a bimodal …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a):Interpolated age and mass distributions while limiting the temperature prior space to below 1750K. The bimodality of the mass distribution disappears in this temperature range while the age of the object remains constant with the full model grid. (b): The bimodal …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Semi-major axis and eccentricity over time for random draws for HD 206893 B and c for 1 Myr integration. We find that there is no strong preference for circular/elliptical orbits or specific semi-major axis values. Configurations are stable in about ∼ 95.8% of cases …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Semi-major axis and eccentricity over time for HD 206893 B and c for 1 Gyr integration. We find that there is a strong preference for circular orbits and for a larger semi-major axis for B and c. Configurations are stable in ∼ 0.8% of cases. tent with Hinkley et al. 2…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Corner plot for HD 206893 B showing effective temperature, surface gravity, v sin i, and RV using the BT-Settl (Allard et al. 2012) model grid and the KPIC K-band spectra. The corner plot shows a bimodal distribution in spin and radial velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The walker plot for both v sin i and RV from 14. The MCMC has converged to a bimodal distribution based on the density of the walker traces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Corner Plot generated by petitRADTRANS Retrieval fitting GPI J-band, H-band, and K-band data simultaneously from Ward-Duong et al. 2021 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Top: Sampled Orbital fitting of HD 206893 B including astrometry from Hinkley et al. (2023) and Radial Velocity measurements from KPIC in 2020 and 2022 using observable-based priors. Orbits are shown in grey, with the astrometry measurements in blue. Bottom: The Radia…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: We investigate the stability of HD 206893 B for the retrieved age of the system, 144 Myr. We observe that there are islands of stability, favoring lower eccentricity. Like our mass estimates from evolutionary modeling, we find that 22 MJup masses and 30 MJup mass obje…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: While jointly fitting HD 206893 B and c’s orbits, we find an insensitivity to the mass of B. To illustrate this effect, we select the MEGNO plots for MassB = 17.0MJup and MassB = 37.0MJup using the orbital parameter determinations from both Efit5 and orbitize! after l…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The “survivability” of coplanar vs non-coplanar systems. When HD 206893 B and c are co-planar, we see a higher maximum percentage of stable systems after 1 Myr with a lower value of ec and higher value of eB at 0.1 < eB < 0.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_23.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ڷo gqF,X MK.GYYYK1/B z衱 [DzQFѾ 8⪫ɓ'XߛmY ) n﨣-

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    S., & Marley , M

    Ackerman , A. S., & Marley , M. S. 2001, , 556, 872, 10.1086/321540

    doi:10.1086/321540 2001

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Agrawal , S., Ruffio , J.-B., Konopacky , Q. M., et al. 2023, , 166, 15, 10.3847/1538-3881/acd6a3

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acd6a3 2023

  6. [6]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370, 2765, 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 370, 2765, 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    2013, , 768, 121, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/121

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

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

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 132 references
  1. [9]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Theissen , C

    Baburaj , A., Konopacky , Q. M., Theissen , C. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.14239, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.14239

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Allard , F., & Hauschildt , P

    Baraffe , I., Chabrier , G., Barman , T. S., Allard , F., & Hauschildt , P. H. 2003, , 402, 701, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030252

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    2015, , 577, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

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

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Macintosh, B., Konopacky, Q

    Barman, T. S., Macintosh, B., Konopacky, Q. M., & Marois, C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 735, L39, 10.1088/2041-8205/735/2/L39

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    L., B \'e zard , B., Boccaletti , A., et al

    Baudino , J. L., B \'e zard , B., Boccaletti , A., et al. 2015, , 582, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526332

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

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

    Beuzit , J.-L., Feldt , M., Dohlen , K., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali , 701418, 10.1117/12.790120

    2008 doi

  9. [18]

    2019 b , , 631, A155, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935251

    ---. 2019 b , , 631, A155, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935251

    2019 doi

  10. [19]

    P., Schneider , A

    Bickle , T. P., Schneider , A. C., Gagn \'e , J., et al. 2024, , 168, 66, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4b16

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    J., Angelo , I., et al

    Blunt , S., Wang , J. J., Angelo , I., et al. 2020, , 159, 89, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6663

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    Boley , A. C. 2009, , 695, L53, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/L53

    2009 doi

  13. [22]

    Z., Cetre, S., Lilley, S., et al

    Bond, C. Z., Cetre, S., Lilley, S., et al. 2020, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 6, 039003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.6.3.039003

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    P., Blunt , S

    Bowler , B. P., Blunt , S. C., & Nielsen , E. L. 2020, , 159, 63, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    P., Liu , M

    Bowler , B. P., Liu , M. C., Dupuy , T. J., & Cushing , M. C. 2010, , 723, 850, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/850

    2010 doi

  16. [25]

    M., & Stone, J

    Brock, L., Barman, T., Konopacky, Q. M., & Stone, J. M. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc46

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    2023, , 671, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243832

    Chabrier , G., Baraffe , I., Phillips , M., & Debras , F. 2023, , 671, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243832

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    L., et al

    Charnay , B., B \'e zard , B., Baudino , J. L., et al. 2018, , 854, 172, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    Crossfield, I. J. M. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 952, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace35f

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    2011, , 729, 128, 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/128

    Currie , T., Burrows , A., Itoh , Y., et al. 2011, , 729, 128, 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/128

    2011 doi

  21. [30]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: University of Massachusetts and Infrared Processing and Analysis Center...

    2003

  22. [31]

    I., & Johnson , J

    Dawson , R. I., & Johnson , J. A. 2018, , 56, 175, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051853

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 035006, 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.3.035006

    Delorme , J.-R., Jovanovic , N., Echeverri , D., et al. 2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 035006, 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.3.035006

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    2017, , 608, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731145

    Delorme , P., Schmidt , T., Bonnefoy , M., et al. 2017, , 608, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731145

    2017 doi

  25. [34]

    M., Mu \ n oz , D

    Dempsey , A. M., Mu \ n oz , D. J., & Lithwick , Y. 2021, , 918, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac22af

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    R., O'Neil , K

    Do \'O , C. R., O'Neil , K. K., Konopacky , Q. M., et al. 2023, , 166, 48, 10.3847/1538-3881/acdc9a

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

    J., & Liu , M

    Dupuy , T. J., & Liu , M. C. 2012, , 201, 19, 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/19

    2012 doi

  28. [37]

    2017, , 231, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa5e4c

    ---. 2017, , 231, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa5e4c

    2017 doi

  29. [38]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Echeverri , D., Jovanovic , N., Delorme , J.-R., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans , J. J. Bryant , & K. Motohara , 121841W, 10.11...

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol

    ESA , ed. 1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol. 1200, The HIPPARCOS and TYCHO catalogues. Astrometric and photometric star catalogues derived from the ESA HIPPARCOS Space Astrometry Mission

    1997

  31. [40]

    Feroz , F., & Hobson , M. P. 2008, , 384, 449, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x

    2008

  32. [41]

    P., & Bridges , M

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., & Bridges , M. 2009, , 398, 1601, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  33. [43]

    2022, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed

    Finnerty, L., Schofield, T., Delorme, J.-R., et al. 2022, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, Vol. 12184 (SPIE), 121844Y, 10.1117/12.2630276

    2022 doi

  34. [44]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey , D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  35. [45]

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

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

    2013 doi

  36. [46]

    2024, Nature, 632, 752–756, 10.1038/s41586-024-07760-y

    Fu, G., Welbanks, L., Deming, D., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 752–756, 10.1038/s41586-024-07760-y

    2024 doi

  37. [47]

    2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350, 10.26093/cds/vizier.1350

    Gaia Collaboration . 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350, 10.26093/cds/vizier.1350

    2020 doi

  38. [48]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  39. [49]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  40. [50]

    2011, , 739, L41, 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L41

    Galicher , R., Marois , C., Macintosh , B., Barman , T., & Konopacky , Q. 2011, , 739, L41, 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L41

    2011 doi

  41. [51]

    2014, , 440, 3140, 10.1093/mnras/stu455

    Go \'z dziewski , K., & Migaszewski , C. 2014, , 440, 3140, 10.1093/mnras/stu455

    2014 doi

  42. [52]

    M., Beust , H., et al

    Grandjean , A., Lagrange , A. M., Beust , H., et al. 2019, , 627, L9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935044

    2019 doi

  43. [53]

    2017, , 602, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730838

    GRAVITY Collaboration , Abuter , R., Accardo , M., et al. 2017, , 602, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730838

    2017 doi

  44. [54]

    O., Corbally , C

    Gray , R. O., Corbally , C. J., Garrison , R. F., et al. 2006, , 132, 161, 10.1086/504637

    2006 doi

  45. [55]

    Z., Pueyo , L., Ruffio , J.-B., et al

    Greenbaum , A. Z., Pueyo , L., Ruffio , J.-B., et al. 2018, , 155, 226, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabcb8

    2018 doi

  46. [56]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Helled , R., Bodenheimer , P., Podolak , M., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 643--665, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch028

    2014 doi

  47. [57]

    Helling , C., Dehn , M., Woitke , P., & Hauschildt , P. H. 2008, , 675, L105, 10.1086/533462

    2008 doi

  48. [58]

    D., et al

    Hinkley , S., Lacour , S., Marleau , G. D., et al. 2023, , 671, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244727

    2023 doi

  49. [59]

    Hoch, K. K. W., Konopacky, Q. M., Barman, T. S., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 155, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac84d4

    2022 doi

  50. [60]

    Hoch, K. K. W., Konopacky, Q. M., Theissen, C. A., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 85, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace442

    2023 doi

  51. [61]

    1986, , 98, 609, 10.1086/131801

    Horne , K. 1986, , 98, 609, 10.1086/131801

    1986 doi

  52. [62]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10299, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10299

    Horstman , K., Ruffio , J.-B., Batygin , K., et al. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10299, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10299

    2024 doi arXiv

  53. [63]

    A., Ruffio , J.-B., Wang , J

    Horstman , K. A., Ruffio , J.-B., Wang , J. J., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10173, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10173

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [65]

    J., Theissen , C

    Hsu , C.-C., Burgasser , A. J., Theissen , C. A., et al. 2021, , 257, 45, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1c7d

    2021 doi

  55. [66]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  56. [67]

    O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al

    Husser , T. O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al. 2013, , 553, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  57. [68]

    1983, Theory of Probability, International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press)

    Jeffreys, H. 1983, Theory of Probability, International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press). https://books.google.com/books?id=EbodAQAAMAAJ

    1983

  58. [69]

    Z., et al

    Jovanovic, N., Delorme, J.-R., Bond, C. Z., et al. 2019, in Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets IX, ed. S. B. Shaklan, Vol. 11117, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 111170T, 10.1117/12.2529330

    2019 doi

  59. [70]

    2021, , 652, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140749

    Kammerer , J., Lacour , S., Stolker , T., et al. 2021, , 652, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140749

    2021 doi

  60. [71]

    Kirkpatrick , J. D. 2005, , 43, 195, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134017

    2005

  61. [72]

    M., Barman, T

    Konopacky, Q. M., Barman, T. S., Macintosh, B. A., & Marois, C. 2013, Science, 339, 1398, 10.1126/science.1232003

    2013 doi

  62. [73]

    2016, , 54, 271, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307

    Kratter , K., & Lodato , G. 2016, , 54, 271, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307

    2016 doi

  63. [74]

    J., Rodet , L., et al

    Lacour , S., Wang , J. J., Rodet , L., et al. 2021, , 654, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141889

    2021 doi

  64. [75]

    2012, , 544, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219127

    Lambrechts , M., & Johansen , A. 2012, , 544, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219127

    2012 doi

  65. [76]

    2014, , 572, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424343

    ---. 2014, , 572, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424343

    2014 doi

  66. [77]

    2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Lenzen , R., Hartung , M., Brandner , W., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood , 944--952, 10.1117/...

    2003 doi

  67. [78]

    R., Ingraham, P., et al

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

    2014 doi

  68. [79]

    A., Graham , J

    Macintosh , B. A., Graham , J. R., Palmer , D. W., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7015, Adaptive Optics Systems, ed. N. Hubin , C. E. Max , & P. L. Wizinowich , 701518, 10.1117/12.788083

    2008 doi

  69. [80]

    P., Giordano, C

    Maffione, N. P., Giordano, C. M., & Cincotta, P. M. 2011, International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 46, 23–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2010.06.008

    2011 doi

  70. [81]

    J., De Rosa , R

    Maire , J., Ingraham , P. J., De Rosa , R. J., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay , I. S. McLean , & H. Takami , 914785, 10.1117/12.2056732

    2014 doi

  71. [82]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 1319–1334, 10.1093/mnras/staa2386

    Marino, S., Zurlo, A., Faramaz, V., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 1319–1334, 10.1093/mnras/staa2386

    2020 doi

  72. [83]

    S., Gelino, C., Stephens, D., Lunine, J

    Marley, M. S., Gelino, C., Stephens, D., Lunine, J. I., & Freedman, R. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 513, 879, 10.1086/306881

    1999 doi

  73. [84]

    S., Saumon, D., Cushing, M., et al

    Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Cushing, M., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 754, 135, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/135

    2012 doi

  74. [85]

    S., Saumon , D., & Goldblatt , C

    Marley , M. S., Saumon , D., & Goldblatt , C. 2010, , 723, L117, 10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L117

    2010 doi

  75. [86]

    2008, Science, 322, 1348, 10.1126/science.1166585

    Marois , C., Macintosh , B., Barman , T., et al. 2008, Science, 322, 1348, 10.1126/science.1166585

    2008 doi

  76. [87]

    2009, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Marois , C., Macintosh , B., Barman , T., et al. 2009, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 214, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#214, 230.03

    2009

  77. [88]

    M., Macintosh , B., & Barman , T

    Marois , C., Zuckerman , B., Konopacky , Q. M., Macintosh , B., & Barman , T. 2010, , 468, 1080, 10.1038/nature09684

    2010 doi

  78. [89]

    C., Fitzgerald, M

    Martin, E. C., Fitzgerald, M. P., McLean, I. S., et al. 2018, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, Vol. 10702 (SPIE), 63–74, 10.1117/12.2312266

    2018 doi

  79. [90]

    R., Jovanovic, N., et al

    Mawet, D., Delorme, J. R., Jovanovic, N., et al. 2017, in Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets VIII, ed. S. Shaklan, Vol. 10400, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1040029, 10.1117/12.2274891

    2017 doi

  80. [91]

    2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    Mayor , M., Pepe , F., Queloz , D., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    2003

  81. [92]

    S., Becklin , E

    McLean , I. S., Becklin , E. E., Bendiksen , O., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3354, Infrared Astronomical Instrumentation, ed. A. M. Fowler , 566--578, 10.1117/12.317283

    1998 doi

  82. [93]

    J., et al

    Meshkat , T., Gao , P., Lee , E. J., et al. 2021, , 917, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac09ed

    2021 doi

  83. [94]

    M., Sch \"o del , R., et al

    Meyer , L., Ghez , A. M., Sch \"o del , R., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 84, 10.1126/science.1225506

    2012 doi

  84. [95]

    2017, , 597, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629908

    Milli , J., Hibon , P., Christiaens , V., et al. 2017, , 597, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629908

    2017 doi

  85. [96]

    P., van Boekel , R., et al

    Molli \`e re , P., Wardenier , J. P., van Boekel , R., et al. 2019, , 627, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935470

    2019 doi

  86. [97]

    2020, , 640, A131, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038325

    Molli \`e re , P., Stolker , T., Lacour , S., et al. 2020, , 640, A131, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038325

    2020 doi

  87. [98]

    2006, , 644, 525, 10.1086/503381

    Mo \'o r , A., \'A brah \'a m , P., Derekas , A., et al. 2006, , 644, 525, 10.1086/503381

    2006 doi

  88. [99]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 5875, 10.21105/joss.05875

    Nasedkin , E., Molli \`e re , P., & Blain , D. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 5875, 10.21105/joss.05875

    2024 doi

  89. [100]

    M., Fehr, A

    Nederlander, A., Hughes, A. M., Fehr, A. J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 917, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/abdd32

    2021 doi

  90. [101]

    L., De Rosa , R

    Nielsen , E. L., De Rosa , R. J., Macintosh , B., et al. 2019, , 158, 13, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab16e9

    2019 doi

  91. [102]

    I., Murray-Clay , R., & Bergin , E

    \"O berg , K. I., Murray-Clay , R., & Bergin , E. A. 2011, , 743, L16, 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L16

    2011 doi

  92. [103]

    K., Martinez , G

    O'Neil , K. K., Martinez , G. D., Hees , A., et al. 2019, , 158, 4, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1d66

    2019 doi

  93. [104]

    2022, , 937, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b11

    Pacetti , E., Turrini , D., Schisano , E., et al. 2022, , 937, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b11

    2022 doi

  94. [105]

    2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  95. [106]

    2015, , 452, 376, 10.1093/mnras/stv1257

    Rein , H., & Tamayo , D. 2015, , 452, 376, 10.1093/mnras/stv1257

    2015 doi

  96. [107]

    2021, , 651, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039518

    Romero, C., Milli, J., Lagrange, A.-M., et al. 2021, , 651, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039518

    2021 doi

  97. [108]

    2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Rousset , G., Lacombe , F., Puget , P., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4839, Adaptive Optical System Technologies II, ed. P. L. Wizinowich & D. Bonaccini , 140--149, 10.1117/12.459332

    2003 doi

  98. [109]

    M., et al

    Ruffio , J.-B., Macintosh , B., Konopacky , Q. M., et al. 2019, , 158, 200, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4594

    2019 doi

  99. [110]

    2023, , 165, 113, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb34a

    Ruffio , J.-B., Horstman , K., Mawet , D., et al. 2023, , 165, 113, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb34a

    2023 doi

  100. [111]

    C., Best , W

    Sanghi , A., Liu , M. C., Best , W. M. J., et al. 2023, , 959, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/acff66

    2023 doi

  101. [112]

    1990, , 85, 1069

    Sato , K., & Kuji , S. 1990, , 85, 1069

    1990

  102. [113]

    D., & Bitsch , B

    Schneider , A. D., & Bitsch , B. 2021, , 654, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141096

    2021 doi

  103. [114]

    A., Rafikov , R

    Sefilian , A. A., Rafikov , R. R., & Wyatt , M. C. 2021, , 910, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/abda46

    2021 doi

  104. [115]

    2018, , 616, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832795

    Soubiran , C., Jasniewicz , G., Chemin , L., et al. 2018, , 616, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832795

    2018 doi

  105. [116]

    Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 21, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21440.x

    2012

  106. [117]

    S., Mourier , P., et al

    Tremblin , P., Amundsen , D. S., Mourier , P., et al. 2015, , 804, L17, 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L17

    2015 doi

  107. [118]

    W., et al

    Tremblin , P., Padioleau , T., Phillips , M. W., et al. 2019, , 876, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05db

    2019 doi

  108. [119]

    Tsai , S.-M., Lee , E. K. H., Powell , D., et al. 2023, , 617, 483, 10.1038/s41586-023-05902-2

    2023 doi

  109. [120]

    2021, , 909, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5

    Turrini , D., Schisano , E., Fonte , S., et al. 2021, , 909, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5

    2021 doi

  110. [121]

    2021, , 651, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038107

    Vigan , A., Fontanive , C., Meyer , M., et al. 2021, , 651, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038107

    2021 doi

  111. [122]

    L., Smith , M

    Villanueva , G. L., Smith , M. D., Protopapa , S., Faggi , S., & Mandell , A. M. 2018, , 217, 86, 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.05.023

    2018 doi

  112. [123]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  113. [124]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 596, L4

    Wahhaj, Z., Milli, J., Kennedy, G., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 596, L4

    2016

  114. [125]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.00088, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.00088

    Wang , J. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.00088, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.00088

    2023 doi arXiv

  115. [126]

    J., Ruffio , J.-B., et al

    Wang , J., Wang , J. J., Ruffio , J.-B., et al. 2023, , 165, 4, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9f19

    2023 doi

  116. [127]

    J., Kulikauskas , M., & Blunt , S

    Wang , J. J., Kulikauskas , M., & Blunt , S. 2021 a , whereistheplanet: Predicting positions of directly imaged companions , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2101.003

    2021

  117. [129]

    2021 c , , 162, 148, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1349

    ---. 2021 c , , 162, 148, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1349

    2021 doi

  118. [130]

    J., Delorme, J.-R., Ruffio, J.-B., et al

    Wang, J. J., Delorme, J.-R., Ruffio, J.-B., et al. 2021, in Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets X, ed. S. B. Shaklan & G. J. Ruane, Vol. 11823 (SPIE), 1182302, 10.1117/12.2596484

    2021 doi

  119. [131]

    2021, , 161, 5, 10.3847/1538-3881/abc263

    Ward-Duong , K., Patience , J., Follette , K., et al. 2021, , 161, 5, 10.3847/1538-3881/abc263

    2021 doi

  120. [132]

    2000, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 112, 315–319, 10.1086/316543

    Wizinowich, P., Acton, D., Shelton, C., et al. 2000, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 112, 315–319, 10.1086/316543

    2000 doi

  121. [133]

    W., Wang , J., Ruffio , J.-B., et al

    Xuan , J. W., Wang , J., Ruffio , J.-B., et al. 2022, , 937, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8673

    2022 doi

  122. [134]

    W., Hsu , C.-C., Finnerty , L., et al

    Xuan , J. W., Hsu , C.-C., Finnerty , L., et al. 2024, , 970, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4796

    2024 doi

  123. [135]

    W., Wang, J., Finnerty, L., et al

    Xuan, J. W., Wang, J., Finnerty, L., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1243

    2024 doi

  124. [136]

    V., Launhardt , R., M \"u ller , A., et al

    Zakhozhay , O. V., Launhardt , R., M \"u ller , A., et al. 2022, , 667, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244213

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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