Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Thermal Emission and Confirmation of the Frigid White Dwarf Exoplanet WD 1856+534b

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 WD 1856+534 b, a Jupiter-sized planet orbiting a white dwarf, emits detectable thermal radiation with a brightness temperature of 186 K, making it the coldest exoplanet whose light has ever been directly observed and the first intact…

desk verdict First direct thermal emission detection of a white-dwarf planet, with a solid mass confirmation - but the significance is slightly overstated and the mid-IR model extrapolation could use a control-sample check. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16982 v1 pith:LANMGRWK submitted 2025-04-23 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Mary Anne Limbach , Andrew Vanderburg , Ryan J. MacDonald , Kevin B. Stevenson , Sydney Jenkins , Simon Blouin , Emily Rauscher , Rachel Bowens-Rubin
show 7 more authors
Elena Gallo James Mang Caroline V. Morley David K. Sing Christopher O'Connor Alexander Venner Siyi Xu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords thermalemissionexoplanetconfirmationwhitedwarfplanetsinfraredexcessJWSTMIRIbrightnesstemperatureforbiddenzoneplanetarymigration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports JWST MIRI observations showing excess mid-infrared flux from WD 1856+534 at 15 and 18 microns, which it attributes to the known transiting planet. Subtracting a model white-dwarf spectrum anchored to NIRSpec data leaves a planet flux consistent with a 186 K blackbody. Together with the system age, this temperature implies a mass below 5.9 Jupiter masses, ruling out the low-mass brown dwarf scenario. If correct, this is the coldest exoplanet ever directly detected and the first intact planet found within a white dwarf's forbidden zone, proving that planets can migrate into close orbits around dead stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the mid-infrared excess method: because a white dwarf is only about the size of Earth and emits little mid-infrared light, a Jupiter-sized planet in a 0.02 AU orbit can contribute a measurable fraction of the system's flux at 15\ndash 18 microns. The argument works by constructing a precise spectral energy distribution for the white dwarf alone, a model atmosphere fit to out-of-transit NIRSpec data with a hydrogen-to-helium ratio of 4.1 and an effective temperature of 4920 K, computing the flux this model predicts in each MIRI band, and subtracting those predictions from the measured blended photometry. A blackbody fit with a Gaussian prior on the planet's radius from the transit depth converts the residual flux into a brightness temperature, and planetary evolution models plus the white dwarf's cooling age convert that temperature into a mass.

What would settle it

Take a medium-resolution MIRI spectrum of WD 1856 from 5 to 28 microns, fit the white-dwarf continuum to the short-wavelength end only, and check whether flux longward of 13 microns exceeds the extrapolated model by the reported 2-4 microjansky excess; if no such excess appears, or if it does not vary with the planet's 1.41-day orbit, the thermal-emission detection is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that WD 1856+534 b has been directly detected in thermal emission: MIRI photometry in seven bands, after subtraction of a white-dwarf model anchored to NIRSpec spectroscopy, shows excess flux at 15 and 18 microns (11% and 17.9% of the white dwarf's flux, at 3.9 $\sigma$ each, 5.7 $\sigma$ combined) that matches a planet with a mid-infrared brightness temperature of $186^{+6}_{-7}$ K and an effective temperature of $184\pm8$ K. Using this temperature with the system's age of 7.4\ndash 10 Gyr and planetary cooling models, the companion's mass is $5.2^{+0.7}_{-0.8}$ Jupiter masses if insolation is negligible, and no more than 5.9 Jupiter masses otherwise, below the 13-Jupiter-mass deuterium-burning limit. The authors therefore conclude that the object is a giant planet, not a brown dwarf, and that it is the first intact exoplanet confirmed inside a white dwarf's forbidden zone, the region engulfed when the host star was a red giant, demonstrating that planets can migrate into close orbits around white dwarfs.

Load-bearing premise

The planet's flux is measured as the difference between observed MIRI flux and a model white-dwarf spectrum, so the entire detection rests on that model predicting the true 15-18 micron flux to within the assumed 2 percent systematic uncertainty, and the result would be spurious if cool white dwarfs harbor unrecognized spectral features at those wavelengths.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • WD 1856+534 b becomes the coldest exoplanet with directly detected light, at about 186 K, roughly 60 K warmer than Jupiter and 25 K cooler than Mars.
  • The mass bound of 0.84\ndash 5.9 Jupiter masses (or $5.2^{+0.7}_{-0.8}$ if insolation is negligible) firmly places the object below the deuterium-burning limit, confirming it as a planet rather than a brown dwarf.
  • As the first intact exoplanet confirmed inside a white dwarf's forbidden zone, it demonstrates that giant planets can survive the host star's red-giant phase and migrate into close orbits around the remnant.
  • The same JWST MIRI technique should detect even colder gas giants around nearby white dwarfs, down to roughly 75 K for spatially resolved planets, making solar-system-like giants accessible to direct characterization.
  • The system's age of 7.4\ndash 10 Gyr and lack of strong ultraviolet irradiation make it a testbed for gas-giant atmospheric chemistry with minimal photochemistry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the measured temperature sits roughly 20 K above the equilibrium temperature, so the planet likely carries internal heat from slow cooling; phase-resolved observations could separate a hotter dayside from genuinely internal luminosity.
  • Editorial extension: if the white-dwarf model is tinted by weak unrecognized mid-infrared features, the mass bound would shift; a direct spectroscopic measurement of the white dwarf's 15\ndash 18 micron continuum would settle this more cheaply than waiting for more photometry.
  • Editorial extension: the same MIRI excess approach, anchored to NIRSpec spectra, could be applied to other nearby white dwarfs to build a census of temperate giant planets in tight orbits without needing coronagraphs.
  • Editorial extension: a dynamical mass measurement from future astrometry or timing would test the cooling-model mass estimate, since the 5.2-Jupiter-mass value assumes insolation is negligible.
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. The paper reports JWST MIRI imaging photometry of the white dwarf WD 1856+534 in seven bands from 5.6 to 18.0 µm. After subtracting a white-dwarf model anchored to independent NIRSpec PRISM data, the authors find excess flux at 15 and 18 µm that they attribute to thermal emission from the known transiting giant planet WD 1856+534b. A blackbody fit to the excess yields a brightness temperature of 186+6−7 K, and evolutionary models combined with the system age give a mass of 5.2+0.7−0.8 MJup if insolation is negligible, or an upper limit of 5.9 MJup otherwise. The paper concludes that WD 1856+534b is a planet rather than a brown dwarf, making it the coldest exoplanet with directly detected light and the first intact planet confirmed within a white dwarf's 'forbidden zone.' The analysis includes a comparison with the MEOW survey of white dwarfs and a discussion of possible false positives.

Significance. If the detection holds, this is a landmark result: it would be the first direct detection of thermal emission from a planet colder than 200 K, the first confirmation of an intact planet orbiting a white dwarf in a close-in orbit, and a demonstration of JWST's ability to characterize very cold, old planets. The paper's strengths include the use of a white-dwarf model anchored to independent NIRSpec data, a physically motivated interpretation with a blackbody and a simple atmospheric retrieval that agree, and a careful attempt to rule out background sources. The availability of the custom reduction code (MEOW) on GitHub is a positive reproducibility feature. The main weaknesses are an apparent arithmetic error in the claimed detection significance and a need for stronger validation of the white-dwarf model at 15–18 µm, which is the regime where the excess is claimed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Table 2] The individual detection significances quoted in the text (3.9σ at F1500W and F1800W) are not reproduced by the values in Table 2: the excess at F1500W is 2.01/0.57 ≈ 3.5σ and at F1800W is 2.31/0.70 ≈ 3.3σ. Combining these two independent bands gives roughly 4.8σ, and including F1280W (0.82/0.56 ≈ 1.5σ) gives about 5.0σ, not 5.7σ as stated. Please correct the significance calculation, specify the combination method (e.g., inverse-variance weighting of the excess fluxes), and report the revised overall significance. This is load-bearing because the detection confidence is a central claim of the paper.
  2. [Sections 3.2 and 3.3] The 2% systematic floor that is added to the photometric errors is justified by the agreement of field white dwarfs with models, but those comparisons are anchored at 7.7 µm (as explicitly stated for the MEOW sample) and therefore may not constrain wavelength-dependent errors at 15–18 µm. The argument that adjustments to the white-dwarf model cannot introduce a slope in the mid-infrared is cited from Limbach et al. 2024a but is not demonstrated for this star with a parameter exploration. Because the entire excess is a subtraction of a synthetic Rayleigh–Jeans tail, a model error that grows slowly with wavelength (e.g., 10% at 18 µm) could in principle mimic the observed pattern. Please provide a more direct estimate of the model uncertainty at 15–18 µm—for example, by comparing NIRSpec-anchored models of a control sample of cool DA white dwarfs to their 15–18 µm photometry, or by exploring the sensitivity of the predicted spectral slope to plausible variations in Teff, H/He ratio, and model assumptions. If the model uncertainty at these wavelengths is larger than 2%, the detection significance and the derived temperature and mass would need to be revised accordingly.
  3. [Section 3.3, final paragraph] The paper argues that if poorly understood mid-infrared features existed in cool white dwarfs (Blouin et al. 2024), they would have appeared as deviations in the NIRSpec data. This argument is not fully compelling because the NIRSpec PRISM data used for anchoring cover only 0.6–4.5 µm, whereas the excess is observed at 15–18 µm. The possibility of features that appear only longward of 4.5 µm is not addressed. Please either present additional evidence that the white-dwarf SED is featureless at 15–18 µm (e.g., from other DA white dwarfs with long-wavelength photometry and NIRSpec coverage) or explicitly acknowledge this as a residual systematic risk in the interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1, paragraph 2] The statement that 'no planets cooler than 275 K have been directly detected' is slightly ambiguous because ϵ Ind Ab has a measured temperature of 275 K. Consider rephrasing to 'no planets cooler than 275 K' with a citation to Matthews et al. (2024) at that point.
  2. [Table 1, planet mass row] The mass value is labeled 'Upper limit' in the table, but the value 5.2+0.7−0.8 MJup is a point estimate under the assumption of negligible insolation. The actual upper limit is 5.9 MJup. Please relabel the row to avoid confusion, for example 'Mass (assuming negligible insolation)' and list the upper limit in a footnote.
  3. [Section 3.2, paragraph 4] The sentence 'The median discrepancy between the model and fit, binned to 0.7 µm bandwidths ... is 1.05%' should clarify whether this is the median absolute residual and whether it is computed within the fitting region (0.6–4.5 µm) or over the full range including the extrapolated region.
  4. [Figure 1 and Section 3.3] The comparison to MEOW white dwarfs is useful, but the different anchoring schemes (NIRSpec for WD 1856 versus 7.7 µm for the MEOW sample) should be explicitly discussed in the main text as a limitation. The caption already notes the difference, but the main text implies a direct comparison without this caveat.
  5. [Appendix B] The analysis of day-night temperature differences in Appendix B is speculative and relies on hot-Jupiter scalings. Consider shortening it or clearly marking it as preliminary, since it does not affect the main conclusions but may distract readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the white dwarf model is fitted to NIRSpec data and the planetary flux is an independent residual; the one self-citation (Limbach et al. 2024a) is auxiliary, not definitional.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained on the key steps. The white dwarf model is fit to NIRSpec PRISM observations over 0.6–4.5 µm, determining Teff, solid angle, and H/He ratio independently of the MIRI data. The model is then used to compute the white dwarf flux in each MIRI band, and the planet flux is measured as a residual: observed MIRI photometry minus the modeled white dwarf flux (Table 2). This is a measurement by subtraction, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction; the model is not adjusted to match the 15–18 µm excess. The paper's test refitting with <2.5 µm data is an internal consistency check, not a fit to the target bands. The brightness temperature of 186 K comes from a blackbody fit to that residual with a Gaussian radius prior from transit measurements plus the independently derived white dwarf radius. The effective temperature from the POSEIDON retrieval is consistent, and the mass constraint follows from evolutionary models and an independently estimated system age. The one potentially load-bearing self-citation is Limbach et al. (2024a), invoked to argue that adjusting the white dwarf model cannot introduce the observed mid-infrared slope. This is a self-citation used to reject a model-error alternative, and it is somewhat load-bearing for interpretation, but it does not make the detection circular by construction: the 5.7σ significance is computed directly from photometry residuals, and the cited claim is an external, falsifiable model-behavior result rather than an input of the present derivation. Concerns about extrapolating the white dwarf model to 18 µm are correctness risks, not circularity.

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

The main free parameters are the planet temperature fitted to the MIRI excess and the retrieval parameters; the WD model parameters are fit to independent NIRSpec data. The central claim rests on the accuracy of WD atmosphere models, MIRI calibration, attribution of the excess to the known planet, and the applicability of cooling models. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Mid-IR brightness temperature (T_bright) = 186+6-7 K
    Fitted with a blackbody model to the MIRI excess photometry (12.8, 15, 18 um) with a Gaussian prior on planet radius from transit measurements; defines the central temperature claim.
  • Atmospheric retrieval parameters (T_top, T_base, log NH3, log CH4, reference radius) = not reported individually; effective temperature 184 +/- 8 K
    Five-parameter POSEIDON retrieval on the same seven MIRI photometry points; used only to estimate effective temperature, consistent with the blackbody fit, but overparameterized for two significant data points.
  • White dwarf model parameters (Teff, H/He ratio, solid angle) = Teff 4920 +/- 50 K, log g 8.05 +/- 0.02, H/He = 4.1
    These were fit to independent JWST NIRSpec PRISM data (0.6-4.5 um), not to the MIRI excess; they anchor the predicted WD flux in the MIRI bands, so errors propagate into the excess measurement.
  • Assumed 2% absolute photometric systematic floor = 2% of measured flux
    Adopted based on Gordon et al. and field WDs matching models at 2-3%; used in significance calculations, not fit to data but a modeling choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption White dwarf atmosphere models (Blouin et al.) predict the photospheric SED of WD 1856 in the mid-infrared to within about 1%.
    The central excess measurement is the difference between observed flux and the model; if the model is systematically low at 15-18 um, the excess is spurious. Tested by NIRSpec extrapolation but not fully independent.
  • domain assumption MIRI absolute photometric calibration is accurate to 2% and the aperture photometry plus dither combination recovers true flux.
    Systematic error budget relies on this; if calibration errors are larger at long wavelengths, the significance decreases.
  • domain assumption The excess emission originates from the known transiting planet, not a debris disk, background source, or additional companion.
    They argue against disk (no pollution), background (PSF subtraction limits to <0.01% probability), and TTVs, but the attribution is not directly spatially resolved.
  • domain assumption Planetary evolution cooling models (Fortney et al., Marley et al.) map the measured temperature and system age to mass.
    The mass constraint and planetary confirmation rely on these models being applicable to a 9 Gyr, 0.02 AU planet around a white dwarf.
  • domain assumption The system age of 7.4-10 Gyr from white dwarf cooling models is correct.
    Used with the temperature to infer mass; age uncertainty contributes roughly 20% to mass uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal Emission and Confirmation of the Frigid White Dwarf Exoplanet WD 1856+534b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LANMGRWK

@misc{pith2026250416982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal Emission and Confirmation of the Frigid White Dwarf Exoplanet WD 1856+534b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LANMGRWK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16982}
}
abstract

We report the detection of thermal emission from and confirm the planetary nature of WD 1856+534b, the first transiting planet known to orbit a white dwarf star. Observations with JWST's Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) reveal excess mid-infrared emission from the white dwarf, consistent with a closely-orbiting Jupiter-sized planet with a temperature of $186^{+6}_{-7}$ K. We attribute this excess flux to the known giant planet in the system, making it the coldest exoplanet from which light has ever been directly observed. These measurements constrain the planet's mass to no more than six times that of Jupiter, confirming its planetary nature and ruling out previously unexcluded low-mass brown dwarf scenarios. WD 1856+534b is now the first intact exoplanet confirmed within a white dwarf's "forbidden zone", a region where planets would have been engulfed during the star's red giant phase. Its presence provides direct evidence that planetary migration into close orbits, including the habitable zone, around white dwarfs is possible. With an age nearly twice that of the Solar System and a temperature akin to our own gas giants, WD 1856+534b demonstrates JWST's unprecedented ability to detect and characterize cold, mature exoplanets, opening new possibilities for imaging and characterizing these worlds in the solar neighborhood.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16982 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Infrared excess of WD 1856 compared with excesses observed in white dwarfs from the JWST MIRI MEOW survey, including the planet candidate around WD 0310-688 (Limbach et al. 2024a), which shows a sim￾ilar excess at 18 µm to that of WD 1856 b. Note that the WD 1856 model is anchored to the measured NIRSpec spec￾trum. In the absence of a NIRSpec spectrum for the MEOW data, we instead anchor the data at 7.7 microns. 3 h… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top Left: Model SED of the white dwarf (dotted black line), a 190 K blackbody (dash-dotted purple line), and a 200 K cloudless planet model(Marley et al. 2021) (dash-dotted blue line; the coldest model available); the legend applies to all three panels. Lines for the blended SEDs (white dwarf + planet model) are shown in the same color as the planet-only models, but as a solid lines. Photometry from both archival Sp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Blackbody fit to the measured planet-star flux ratio (top left) and the corresponding posterior distribution (top right). Bottom: Atmospheric retrieval with POSEIDON on the measured photometry (bottom left) and the corresponding computed effective temperature posterior (bottom right). Both approaches constrain the planet’s brightness/effective tempera￾ture to ≈ 185 K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Planet radius (in Jupiter radii) versus measured temperature of confirmed exoplanets (green circles) and free￾floating planetary-mass objects (FFPs; gray diamonds), so￾lar system planets (purple squares) and WD 1856 b (yel￾low star). WD 1856 b bridges the temperature g…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: False-color image of the WD 1856+534 system constructed using three JWST/MIRI imaging bands: F770W (7.7 µm, blue), F1500W (15 µm, green), and F1800W (18 µm, red). The FOV measures 74′′× 113′′, corresponding to 1835 AU × 2802 AU at the system’s distance of 24.8 pc. The …

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. Modelling the 3D atmospheric structure of the cold Jupiter WD1856+534b orbiting a white dwarf

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 3D atmosphere simulation of the cold Jupiter WD 1856+534 b produces temperature, chemistry, wind, and emission-spectrum predictions across six metallicity and internal-heat scenarios.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2011, ApJL, 731, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/L31

    Agol, E. 2011, ApJL, 731, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/L31

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/l31 2011

  2. [2]

    2009, A&A, 501, L23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912505 12 Limbach et al

    Alonso, R., Guillot, T., Mazeh, T., et al. 2009, A&A, 501, L23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912505 12 Limbach et al

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912505 2009

  3. [3]

    2021, A&A, 649, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140359 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Alonso, R., Rodr´ ıguez-Gil, P., Izquierdo, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140359 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy C...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140359 2021

  4. [4]

    D., Patterson, A

    Barber, S. D., Patterson, A. J., Kilic, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/26

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/1/26 2012

  5. [5]

    2013, Astrobiology, 13, 279, doi: 10.1089/ast.2012.0867

    Barnes, R., & Heller, R. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 279, doi: 10.1089/ast.2012.0867

    arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Bauer, E. B. 2023, ApJ, 950, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd057

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd057 2023

  7. [7]

    Z., Adams, F

    Becker, J., Seligman, D. Z., Adams, F. C., & Styczinski, M. J. 2023, ApJL, 945, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbe44

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbe44 2023

  8. [8]

    E., Farihi, J., Jura, M., et al

    Becklin, E. E., Farihi, J., Jura, M., et al. 2005, ApJL, 632, L119, doi: 10.1086/497826 B´ edard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe

    doi:10.1086/497826 2005

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    W., Beaulieu, J

    Blackman, J. W., Beaulieu, J. P., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 272, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03869-6

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Blouin, S., Dufour, P., & Allard, N. F. 2018a, ApJ, 863, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4a9

    doi

  3. [11]

    F., & Kilic, M

    Blouin, S., Dufour, P., Allard, N. F., & Kilic, M. 2018b, ApJ, 867, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae53a

    doi

  4. [12]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16224, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16224

    Dufour, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16224, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16224

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    J., Koch, D., Jenkins, J., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Jenkins, J., et al. 2009, Science, 325, 709, doi: 10.1126/science.1178312

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    O., et al

    Bouchet, P., Garc´ ıa-Mar´ ın, M., Lagage, P. O., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 612, doi: 10.1086/682254

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Carter, A., et al

    Bowens-Rubin, R., Limbach, M. A., Carter, A., et al. 2024, Cool kids on the block: The direct detection of cold ice giants and gas giants orbiting young low-mass neighbors, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #6122

    2024

  8. [16]

    G., Nordhaus, J., & Wilson, E

    Chamandy, L., Blackman, E. G., Nordhaus, J., & Wilson, E. 2021, MNRAS, 502, L110, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab017

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Megeath, S

    Charbonneau, D., Allen, L. E., Megeath, S. T., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 523, doi: 10.1086/429991

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Tremblay, P.-E., et al

    Cunningham, T., Wheatley, P. J., Tremblay, P.-E., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 219, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04300-w

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    H., & Sigurdsson, S

    Debes, J. H., & Sigurdsson, S. 2002, ApJ, 572, 556, doi: 10.1086/340291

    2002 doi

  12. [20]

    H., Sigurdsson, S., & Woodgate, B

    Debes, J. H., Sigurdsson, S., & Woodgate, B. E. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1168, doi: 10.1086/491640

    2005 doi

  13. [21]

    J., & Harrington, J

    Deming, D., Seager, S., Richardson, L. J., & Harrington, J. 2005, Nature, 434, 740, doi: 10.1038/nature03507

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    Farihi, J., Zuckerman, B., & Becklin, E. E. 2008, ApJ, 674, 431, doi: 10.1086/521715

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    P., & Bridges, M

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

    2009

  16. [24]

    N., Greathouse, T

    Fletcher, L. N., Greathouse, T. K., Orton, G. S., et al. 2016, Icarus, 278, 128, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.06.008

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Marley, M

    Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., & Barnes, J. W. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1661, doi: 10.1086/512120

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    A., et al

    Fossati, L., Bagnulo, S., Haswell, C. A., et al. 2012, ApJL, 757, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L15 G¨ ansicke, B. T., Schreiber, M. R., Toloza, O., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 61, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1789-8

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G

    Gordon, K. D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G. C., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac66dc

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Sloan, G

    Gordon, K. D., Sloan, G. C., Garcia Marin, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10443, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10443

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    2015, SOLAR SYSTEM/SUN,

    Haberle, R. 2015, SOLAR SYSTEM/SUN,

    2015

  23. [31]

    Hanel, R., Conrath, B., Herath, L., Kunde, V., & Pirraglia, J. 1981, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 8705, doi: 10.1029/JA086iA10p08705

    1981 doi

  24. [32]

    K., & Winget, D

    Kilic, M., von Hippel, T., Leggett, S. K., & Winget, D. E. 2005, ApJL, 632, L115, doi: 10.1086/497825

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    K., et al

    Kiman, R., Xu, S., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7788

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L

    Knutson, H. A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L. E., et al. 2007, Nature, 447, 183, doi: 10.1038/nature05782

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    D., & Showman, A

    Komacek, T. D., & Showman, A. P. 2016, ApJ, 821, 16, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/16

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    Kozakis, T., Kaltenegger, L., & Hoard, D. W. 2018, ApJ, 862, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacbc7

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    2020, ApJL, 894, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6f6a

    Kozakis, T., Lin, Z., & Kaltenegger, L. 2020, ApJL, 894, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6f6a

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 4679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad766

    Kubiak, S., Vanderburg, A., Becker, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad766

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Zorotovic, M., et al

    Lagos, F., Schreiber, M. R., Zorotovic, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3703

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., et al

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

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, A&A, 675, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245827 MIRI Detects Light from WD 1856 b 13

    Ledda, S., Danielski, C., & Turrini, D. 2023, A&A, 675, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245827 MIRI Detects Light from WD 1856 b 13

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Vanderburg, A., Stevenson, K

    Limbach, M. A., Vanderburg, A., Stevenson, K. B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2823

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Vanderburg, A., Blouin, S., et al

    Limbach, M. A., Vanderburg, A., Blouin, S., et al. 2023, The MIRI survey for Exoplanets Orbiting White-dwarfs (MEOW), JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #3964

    2023

  36. [44]

    A., Vanderburg, A., Venner, A., et al

    Limbach, M. A., Vanderburg, A., Venner, A., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 973, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad74ed

    doi

  37. [45]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt026

    Loeb, A., & Maoz, D. 2013, MNRAS, 432, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt026

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    L., Burgasser, A

    Luhman, K. L., Burgasser, A. J., & Bochanski, J. J. 2011, ApJL, 730, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/730/1/L9

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    L., Tremblin, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al

    Luhman, K. L., Tremblin, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0b72

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    MacDonald, R. J. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4873, doi: 10.21105/joss.04873

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    J., & Madhusudhan, N

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

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Batalha, N., Foote, T

    MacDonald, R. J., Batalha, N., Foote, T. O., et al. 2021, Under the Light of a Dead Star: Revealing the Atmospheric Composition of a White Dwarf Planet, JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. #2358

    2021

  43. [51]

    F., Villaver, E., Mustill, A

    Maldonado, R. F., Villaver, E., Mustill, A. J., Ch´ avez, M., & Bertone, E. 2021, MNRAS, 501, L43, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa193

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

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

    Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Visscher, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

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

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

    2010 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Carter, A

    Matthews, E. C., Carter, A. L., Pathak, P., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 789, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07837-8 Molli` ere, P., Molyarova, T., Bitsch, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6a56 Mu˜ noz, D. J., & Petrovich, C. 2020, ApJL, 904, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041...

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    E., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al

    Mullally, S. E., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 962, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2348 —. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.13153, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.13153

    doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    Nordhaus, J., & Spiegel, D. S. 2013a, MNRAS, 432, 500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt569 —. 2013b, MNRAS, 432, 500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt569 O’Connor, C. E., Liu, B., & Lai, D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3723

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14014, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14014

    Pathak, P., Blouin, S., & Herwig, F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14014, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14014

    2024 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    Perez-Becker, D., & Showman, A. P. 2013, ApJ, 776, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/134

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    2024, AJ, 167, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad374c

    Poulsen, S., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad374c

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    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

  53. [61]

    2007, Nature, 445, 892, doi: 10.1038/nature05636

    Harrington, J. 2007, Nature, 445, 892, doi: 10.1038/nature05636

    2007 doi

  54. [62]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab713

    Rolland, B., Bergeron, P., & Fontaine, G. 2018, ApJ, 857, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab713

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    Roman, M. T. 2023, Remote Sensing, 15, 1811, doi: 10.3390/rs15071811

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    K., Mukherjee, S., et al

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

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    P., & Guillot, T

    Showman, A. P., & Guillot, T. 2002, A&A, 385, 166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020101

    2002 doi

  58. [66]

    B., Hansen, B

    Sigurdsson, S., Richer, H. B., Hansen, B. M., Stairs, I. H., & Thorsett, S. E. 2003, Science, 301, 193, doi: 10.1126/science.1086326 Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. 2000, SAOImage DS9: A utility for displaying astronomical images in the X11 window environment, Astrophys...

    2003 doi

  59. [67]

    Snellen, I. A. G., de Mooij, E. J. W., & Albrecht, S. 2009, Nature, 459, 543, doi: 10.1038/nature08045

    2009 doi

  60. [68]

    S., Burrows, A., & Milsom, J

    Spiegel, D. S., Burrows, A., & Milsom, J. A. 2011, ApJ, 727, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/57

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    P., Naoz, S., & Gaudi, B

    Stephan, A. P., Naoz, S., & Gaudi, B. S. 2021, ApJ, 922, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac22a9

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    Stevenson, K. B. 2020, ApJL, 898, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba68c

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    E., Arzoumanian, Z., & Taylor, J

    Thorsett, S. E., Arzoumanian, Z., & Taylor, J. H. 1993, ApJL, 412, L33, doi: 10.1086/186933 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    1993 doi

  64. [72]

    C., Daylan, T., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Becker, J. C., Daylan, T., et al. 2021, Thermal Emission from the First Planet Transiting a White Dwarf, JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. #2507

    2021

  65. [73]

    A., Xu, S., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Rappaport, S. A., Xu, S., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 363–367, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2713-y

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    2021, Planetary Systems Around White Dwarfs

    Veras, D. 2021, Planetary Systems Around White Dwarfs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.06550

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  68. [76]

    J., et al

    Xu, S., Diamond-Lowe, H., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 296, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2d26

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    Zhan, R., Koll, D. D. B., & Ding, F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03189, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03189 14 Limbach et al

    2024 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1575, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02375-9

    Zhang, K., Zang, W., El-Badry, K., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1575, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02375-9

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    Zuckerman, B., & Becklin, E. E. 1987, Nature, 330, 138, doi: 10.1038/330138a0

    1987 doi

  72. [80]

    2010, ApJ, 722, 725, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/725

    Zuckerman, B., Melis, C., Klein, B., Koester, D., & Jura, M. 2010, ApJ, 722, 725, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/725

    2010 doi

Pith tools

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