Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 9 minor 133 references

The planetary-mass-limit VLT/SINFONI library: Spectral extraction and atmospheric characterization via forward modeling

T0 review · 4 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The K-band spectra show an effective-temperature drop of more than 500 K across the M/L transition, which the authors attribute largely to limitations in current self-consistent atmospheric model grids.

desk verdict The data release is worth having, but the >500 K Teff drop is a grid-selection artifact, not a confirmed observational result. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03562 v1 pith:SQG2OGZP submitted 2025-07-04 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

P. Palma-Bifani , M. Bonnefoy , G. Chauvin , P. Rojo , P. Baudoz , B. Charnay , A. Denis , K. Hoch
show 4 more authors
S. Petrus M. Ravet A. Simonnin A. Vigan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords planetary-masscompanionsisolatedbrowndwarfsM/LtransitionK-bandspectroscopyatmosphericforwardmodelingeffectivetemperaturemodelgridcomparisoncarbon-to-oxygenratio
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 analyzes 21 archival VLT/SINFONI K-band spectra of young planetary-mass companions and isolated brown dwarfs, spectral types M5 to L5, to measure atmospheric properties. Using Bayesian forward modeling against four families of self-consistent atmospheric model grids, the authors find a drop of more than 500 K in effective temperature as spectral type crosses the M/L transition. They argue this discontinuity is likely a symptom of limitations in current model grids rather than pure astrophysics, because the grids that win the fits on the hot side and the cold side differ and do not uniformly cover parameter space. The paper also reports solar-like carbon-to-oxygen ratios for three companions and finds no obvious K-band difference between companions and isolated brown dwarfs, tentatively suggesting a shared formation process.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on spectral extraction plus Bayesian forward modeling: TExTRIS pulls calibrated K-band spectra out of the SINFONI data cubes, and ForMoSA, a nested-sampling forward-modeling tool, fits each spectrum with grids of self-consistent atmospheric models (cloud-free ATMO, dusty BT-Settl plus its C/O variant, radiatively-convective Exo-REM, and equilibrium-chemistry Sonora Diamondback). The pivot of the argument is the per-target selection of the grid with the lowest reduced chi-squared; that selection builds the effective-temperature-versus-spectral-type sequence in which the 500 K drop appears. The temperature sensitivity comes from the K-band's H2O bands and the CO overtone near 2.2 µm, whose depths and shapes move with effective temperature and surface gravity.

What would settle it

Fit the same 21 extracted spectra with a single self-consistent grid extended to cover roughly 1500 to 3000 K with consistent cloud and chemistry treatment, and check whether the effective temperature still jumps by more than 500 K across the M/L transition; if the step flattens, the reported drop is a grid-switching artifact. A complementary model-independent check is to measure the 2.2 µm CO-band-head to H2O-feature depth ratio across the sequence and see whether that temperature proxy is continuous where the modeled Teff jumps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated on its own terms, is that the K-band spectrum is a reliable effective-temperature indicator for young objects of spectral type M5 to L5, and that modeling 21 such objects with four families of self-consistent atmospheric model grids reveals an effective-temperature drop of more than 500 K across the M/L transition. The hotter objects (roughly above 2000 K) are fit best by ATMO or BT-Settl, while the cooler objects are fit best by Exo-REM or BT-SETTL+C/O; because the grids do not cover the same parameter space and produce different answers, the authors attribute the drop at least in large part to limitations of the current model grids rather than to a purely astrophysical atmospheric change. They also find no obvious K-band spectral difference between wide-orbit companions and isolated brown dwarfs, which they read as tentative evidence that these super-Jupiter-like objects may share a common formation process, and they report solar-compatible C/O ratios for three companions.

Load-bearing premise

The 500 K drop holds only if the lowest-chi-squared grid chosen for each object is also the physically most accurate model, even though no single grid covers the whole temperature range and different grids win on either side of the transition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The K-band spectrum can serve as a reliable effective-temperature indicator for young M5-L5 planetary-mass objects, so future medium-resolution K-band surveys can estimate Teff without relying on longer-wavelength data.
  • Current self-consistent model grids disagree at the M/L transition and cover the parameter space unevenly, so atmospheric parameters derived from different grids cannot yet be compared across that boundary as a single homogeneous sequence.
  • No obvious K-band spectral difference appears between directly imaged companions and isolated brown dwarfs in this sample; if confirmed with larger samples, this favors a common formation process for these wide-orbit objects.
  • C/O ratios for 2M 0103 AB b, AB Pic b, and CD-35 2722 b are compatible with solar composition, adding three directly imaged companions to the sample with measured carbon-to-oxygen ratios.
  • Fixed prior information from Gaia extinction maps and evolutionary-model surface-gravity estimates is necessary to avoid degenerate, nonphysical solutions when modeling K-band spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the >500 K drop may be partly a grid-switching artifact, because the fit is allowed to change model family at the transition; a single grid spanning both temperature domains, or model-independent CO-to-H2O line ratios, would separate an astrophysical discontinuity from model systematics.
  • Editorial extension: if the drop is physical, young low-gravity objects cross the M/L transition at cooler effective temperatures than field brown dwarfs, meaning spectral classification itself is gravity- and cloud-dependent; this could be tested with JWST medium-resolution spectroscopy of a few M8-L2 objects analyzed with one unified model.
  • Editorial extension: the apparent companion/isolated similarity in the K-band does not rule out different formation channels; C/O, isotopic ratios, and system architecture may be more sensitive discriminators than K-band morphology alone.
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 / 9 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a homogeneous reduction and analysis of 21 archival VLT/SINFONI K-band spectra (R≈4000) of young substellar companions and isolated brown dwarfs spanning spectral types M5–L5. The spectra are extracted with TExTRIS and modeled with ForMoSA using five self-consistent atmospheric model grids (ATMO, BT-Settl, BT-SETTL+C/O, Exo-REM, Sonora Diamondback), adopting a fixed 'v08' setup with Gaia-based extinction and Gaussian log g priors derived from BHAC15/COND03 evolutionary models. The headline result is a drop of more than 500 K in effective temperature across the M/L transition, which the authors attribute to limitations of current atmospheric models; the paper also reports C/O ratios for three companions (2M 0103 AB b, AB Pic b, CD-35 2722 b) and finds no K-band spectral differences between companions and isolated objects, tentatively suggesting similar formation pathways.

Significance. The paper delivers a genuinely useful archival product: 21 uniformly reduced, publicly released medium-resolution K-band spectra, with a well-documented Bayesian pipeline (open-source ForMoSA, explicit grid choices and priors) and a transparent five-grid comparison. If the claimed 500 K Teff drop at the M/L transition were robust, it would be an important constraint on substellar atmospheric physics, and the three C/O estimates would add to a sparse sample of directly imaged companions. The explicit admission of model-grid discrepancies and the careful documentation of the reduction methodology are strengths. As argued in the major comments, however, the headline drop is not yet established beyond model systematics; the lasting value of the paper resides in the library itself, the extraction methodology, and the demonstration that self-consistent grids diverge strongly across the M/L transition.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.4, 4.1, Figs. 8–9, Table 1] The claimed >500 K drop in Teff at the M/L transition is not established as an observational result, because the best-fit Teff values in Figure 9 are selected per target as the grid with lowest reduced chi2 (Section 3.4, Figure 8), and the grids so selected switch at the transition: ATMO/BT-Settl for M5–M8 and Exo-REM/BT-SETTL+C/O for M9–L5. Since the grids have different Teff zero-points and ranges (Table 1), and since results for M5–M7 targets are additionally pre-restricted by spectral type (Section 3.4), the 'drop' is a comparison across model families rather than within one grid. The grids spanning the full Teff range (ATMO, Sonora Diamondback) do not show the drop (Figure 9); the authors' interpretation that this reflects missing physics (§4.1) is not tested against the alternative that the drop is a grid-calibration artifact, a concern reinforced by their own citation of Sanghi et al. (2023) that BT-Settl underestimates Teff through insufficient dust (§4.1). The low chi2 discrimination power makes this urgent: for AB Pic b, ATMO and Exo-REM give Teff differing by roughly 540 K with only Delta-chi2_red ≈ 4 (Table B.2), and for CD-35 2722 b the two best grids differ by roughly 160 K with Delta-chi2_red ≈ 1 (Table 3). Two of the cool-side targets (USco 1612-2156 and USco 1613-2124) are described in §4.2 as too noisy to yield reliable parameters, yet they appear in Figure 9. The claim should be reframed as model-dependent, or supported by a within-grid analysis over the full sample and an explicit systematic floor.
  2. [Tables 3, B.1–B.20; §3.4] The quoted 1σ uncertainties are purely statistical (as the authors state in §3.4), but the cross-grid dispersion for a single target is as large as the headline effect: DH Tau b spans 1627–2252 K across grids (Table B.4), USco 1612-2156 spans roughly 1690–2350 K (Table B.18), and even the best-constrained target, CD-35 2722 b, spans 1601–1819 K (Table 3). This 200–650 K systematic floor is comparable to or exceeds the claimed 500 K drop, so the drop is not significant relative to model systematics; the abstract and conclusions should carry this caveat explicitly, and ideally the figures should show the inter-grid spread as an error envelope rather than only per-grid statistical errors.
  3. [3.3, Fig. 6; Tables 3, B.2, A.4; §4.3] The C/O results are not robust enough to support the abstract's wording 'C/O measurements for three companions.' For AB Pic b, the C/O and [M/H] posteriors shift markedly between runs v07 and v08 and therefore depend on the BHAC15-based log g prior (Section 3.3, Figure 6). Several reported errors show edge effects or clipping (AB Pic b C/O = 0.45+0.11−0.0, CD-35 2722 b C/O = 0.5+0.01−0.0, 2M 0103 AB b C/O = 0.6+0.0−0.05), and the cross-grid C/O spread is of order 0.2 (ATMO pins C/O at its grid edge 0.7, while BT-SETTL+C/O gives 0.54 for CD-35 2722 b, Table 3); the authors themselves state that ATMO's C/O dimension cannot be reliably explored (§4.1). A sensitivity analysis against the prior-free v07 runs and an explicit statement of the cross-grid C/O systematics should accompany any 'measurement' claim.
  4. [3.3, 4.2, Table A.5] Part of the validation language in §4.2 is circular for log g: the v08 runs adopt Gaussian log g priors built from BHAC15/COND03 evolutionary models (§3.3) and then invoke agreement with those same evolutionary-model predictions as evidence of 'high confidence' in the retrieved parameters. Since Teff was not prior-constrained, the Teff agreement is meaningful, but the log g agreement should be evaluated separately against the prior-free v07 runs or an independent prior before 'excellent alignment with evolutionary models' is used as a quality indicator.
minor comments (9)
  1. [Figure 7 caption] The caption states 'using the setup of run v07,' which conflicts with §3.4 where the authors state that v08 results are reported hereafter; the caption or the text should be harmonized.
  2. [§2.2 and Table A.2] The text says 'All our targets are young (1–30 Myr),' but Table A.2 lists CD-35 2722 b with an age of 133±20 Myr; the statement should be revised or qualified.
  3. [Appendix B and Table A.2] Appendix B gives an age of approximately 40 Myr for 2M 0103 AB b, while Table A.2 reports 30±1 Myr; the values should be reconciled.
  4. [Table A.4 and §4.3] Table A.4 lists C/O values for DH Tau b and FU Tau b, yet §4.3 states that C/O was reliably measured only for 2M 0103 AB b, AB Pic b, and CD-35 2722 b; the table should mark the other entries as preliminary or remove them.
  5. [§3.3 and Tables B.1–B.20] The paper establishes a minimum measurable broadening of about 75 km/s at R≈4000 and states that smaller values cannot be measured, so the reported β posterior values below that threshold (e.g., 52.9 km/s for DH Tau b, Table B.4) should be presented as upper limits or non-detections.
  6. [Table 1] The notation for the equilibrium-chemistry column is confusing (entries mix '=', ',', 'No', and 'Yes' with a caption describing equality/inequality symbols); the column should be split into explicit 'clouds' and 'chemistry' columns with a clear legend.
  7. [References] The reference list contains a duplicate entry for Patience et al. (2012), and the ForMoSA code is cited only as 'ForMoSA Collaboration et al., in prep.' without a version or DOI, which hampers reproducibility.
  8. [Table 2] The reduced chi2 values for the best runs are of order 10–30, meaning the models are formally poor fits; the paper should state explicitly that only relative chi2 differences are used for grid selection, particularly since grids with nearly equal chi2 can give Teff differing by hundreds of kelvin (Table B.2 for AB Pic b).
  9. [Figures 8 and 9; Table B.20] Several reported best-fit Teff values lie at grid boundaries (e.g., USco CTIO 108 A at the BT-Settl 2900 K upper edge, Table B.20); these edge cases should be flagged so that truncated posteriors are not presented as converged values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Teff drop is a model-fit output checked against external benchmarks, and the paper itself discloses the main model-dependence risk.

full rationale

The central claimed result, a >500 K Teff drop at the M/L transition, is an output of Bayesian forward modeling with ForMoSA using four external grid families (ATMO, BT-Settl, Exo-REM, Sonora Diamondback), not an input to the fits. The paper reports a model-selection rule in Section 3.4 ('we selected the model with the lowest chi2_red for each target') and then reads the drop off the selected Teff values in Figures 8 and 9. This is a fitted quantity compared with external benchmarks, not a prediction that reduces to its inputs by construction. The most serious caveat is that the hot side of the transition is fit only with ATMO/BT-Settl while the cool side is fit with Exo-REM/BT-SETTL+C/O, so the drop could be influenced by grid zero-point offsets. However, the paper explicitly acknowledges this in Section 4.1: 'For the Sonora Diamondback and ATMO model grids, we do not observe the same Teff drop.' That disclosure makes this a correctness/robustness limitation, not a circular derivation. The informed log(g) Gaussian prior comes from external BHAC15 evolutionary models and does shift some C/O posteriors (Figure 6), but Teff is not prior-constrained, so the Teff result has independent content. Self-citations to ForMoSA and prior Palma-Bifani works are methodological and non-load-bearing; the load-bearing atmospheric grids are external, and the comparison relations (Filippazzo et al. 2015, BHAC15, literature C/O) are independent of the present fits. No equation-level reduction, fitted-parameter-renamed-as-prediction, or self-citation uniqueness argument exists in the paper. Therefore no circular step is identified, and the score reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations and the acknowledged model-dependence caveat.

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

The central results are parameter estimates from forward modeling, so the load-bearing inputs are the model grids, the prior choices, the extinction map, and the external Teff-spectral type relation. The paper provides an honest comparison of grids, but the reported uncertainties do not include inter-grid dispersion, which is the dominant systematic.

free parameters (8)
  • Radial velocity RV = -13 to +13 km/s across sample
    Nuisance Doppler shift fitted with uniform prior -100 to 100 km/s; needed to align line positions.
  • Line broadening beta = 60-130 km/s across sample
    Fitted with uniform prior 0-500 km/s; below 75 km/s it is not resolved at R~4000, so it is a nuisance parameter for CO band depths.
  • Effective temperature Teff = 1506-2899 K across sample (best-grid values)
    Primary grid parameter; values from Tables B.1-B.20 and Figure 8.
  • Surface gravity log g = 3.0-4.5 dex in v08 runs
    Grid parameter; v08 runs use a Gaussian prior from BHAC15 COND03, loosened for BT-Settl.
  • Metallicity [M/H] = roughly -0.1 to +0.6 where fitted
    Fitted for ATMO and Exo-REM; fixed to solar for BT-Settl and Sonora.
  • Carbon-to-oxygen ratio C/O = 0.45-0.60 for the three reported companions
    Fitted with Exo-REM and BT-SETTL+C/O; ATMO grid has only three C/O points and pins at 0.7.
  • Fingering convection index gamma (ATMO) = 1.01-1.05
    ATMO-specific parameter for temperature gradient reduction; uniformly sampled.
  • Sedimentation efficiency fsed (Sonora) = 1-8
    Sonora cloud parameter; uniformly sampled.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The four self-consistent model grids (ATMO, BT-Settl, Exo-REM, Sonora) are reliable enough for parameter estimation from K-band spectra.
    Section 3.2. The paper's own inter-grid comparison (Figures 9-11) shows they disagree by hundreds of kelvin, making this assumption partially load-bearing.
  • domain assumption BHAC15 COND03 evolutionary models provide correct log(g) values for Gaussian priors.
    Section 3.3, v08 setup. The prior shifts AB Pic b's [M/H] and C/O (Figure 6), so the reported C/O values inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption Literature spectral types and the Filippazzo et al. (2015) Teff-spectral type relation are accurate external benchmarks.
    Section 4.1 and Figure 9; used to interpret the temperature drop.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 3D extinction map values (Lallement et al. 2022) correctly represent interstellar extinction toward each target.
    Section 2.2 and Section 3.3; Av fixed to these values in the adopted runs.
  • domain assumption Standard-star blackbody continua are adequate for telluric division in the K band.
    Section 2.3; a blackbody at the standard star's Teff is divided out, which can introduce continuum systematics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The planetary-mass-limit VLT/SINFONI library: Spectral extraction and atmospheric characterization via forward modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SQG2OGZP

@misc{pith2026250703562,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The planetary-mass-limit VLT/SINFONI library: Spectral extraction and atmospheric characterization via forward modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SQG2OGZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03562}
}
read the original abstract

We aim to deepen our understanding of the M-L transition on planetary-mass companions and isolated brown dwarfs, and search for evidence of possible differences between these two populations of objects. To this end, we present a set of 21 VLT/SINFONI K-band observations from five archival programs at a spectral resolution of 4000. We aim to measure atmospheric properties, such as temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity, to understand the similarities and differences between objects ranging from M5 to L5 in spectral type. We extracted the spectra of these targets with the TExTRIS code. Subsequently, we model them using ForMoSA, a Bayesian forward modeling tool for spectral analysis, exploring four families of self-consistent atmospheric models: ATMO, BT-Settl, Exo-REM, and Sonora. Here we present the spectra of our targets and the derived parameters from the atmospheric modeling. We observed a drop in effective temperature of more than 500 K as a function of spectral type at the M/L transition, likely related to limitations in the current atmospheric models. In addition, we report carbon-to-oxygen ratio measurements for three companions (2M 0103 AB b, AB Pic b, and CD-35 2722 b), which contribute to the growing list of exoplanets for which this value has been measured. In conclusion, the VLT/SINFONI Library highlights two key points. First, there is a critical need to further investigate the discrepancies among grids of spectra generated by self-consistent models, as these models yield varying results and do not uniformly explore the parameter space. Second, we do not observe apparent discrepancies in the K-band spectra between companions and isolated brown dwarfs, which potentially suggests that these super-Jupiter objects formed through a similar process; however, this warrants further investigation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03562 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sky map showing right ascension and declination curves together with our 21 targets. The circle marks represent companions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of the first exposure of AB Pic b: The SIN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of optimal aperture radius selection and spectra rejection criteria using the AB Pic b dataset. In each panel, each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Final extracted spectra for each of the 21 targets in the sample, organized and colored by their spectral type reported in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Exploration of the impact of Av on the derived posterior values of Teff and log (g) for the ATMO grid of models. The Av value is indicated by the color of each symbol. In the top panel, we compare Teff and log (g) from model runs v01 (Av = 0) and v04 (Av freely explore…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the posterior distributions using a uniform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best-fit results from each atmospheric grid using the setup of run v07 for the companion CD-35 2722 b. On the left, we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Best spectral fit for each target. Here, the targets are organized by their derived [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spectral type vs. Teff comparison. Large markers represent the best-model Teff values, presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of the two grids that reach the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mass vs. C/O ratio for directly imaged companions, building on the work of Hoch et al. (2023). The magenta points represent the original sample of directly imaged planets, while the purple points indicate the three new measurements pro￾vided by this work. Recently pub…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ackerman , A. S. & Marley , M. S. 2001, , 556, 872

    2001

  2. [2]

    L., Jensen, E

    Akeson, R. L., Jensen, E. L. N., Carpenter, J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 158

    2019

  3. [3]

    2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Allard , F. 2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 299, Exploring the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems, ed. M. Booth , B. C. Matthews , & J. R. Graham , 271--272

    2014

  4. [4]

    H., Alexander , D

    Allard , F., Hauschildt , P. H., Alexander , D. R., Tamanai , A., & Schweitzer , A. 2001, , 556, 357

    2001

  5. [5]

    Allard , F., Homeier , D., Freytag , B., & Sharp , C. M. 2012, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 57, EAS Publications Series, ed. C. Reyl \'e , C. Charbonnel , & M. Schultheis , 3--43

    2012

  6. [6]

    , Baraffe, Isabelle , Tremblin, Pascal , et al

    Amundsen, D.S. , Baraffe, Isabelle , Tremblin, Pascal , et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A59

    2014

  7. [7]

    M., & Grevesse , N

    Asplund , M., Amarsi , A. M., & Grevesse , N. 2021, , 653, A141

    2021

  8. [8]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481–522

    2009

Show all 133 references
  1. [9]

    O., Franson , K., Chomez , A., et al

    Balmer , W. O., Franson , K., Chomez , A., et al. 2025, , 169, 30

    2025

  2. [10]

    2015, , 577, A42

    Baraffe , I., Homeier , D., Allard , F., & Chabrier , G. 2015, , 577, A42

    2015

  3. [11]

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

    Baudino , J. L., B \'e zard , B., Boccaletti , A., et al. 2015, , 582, A83

    2015

  4. [12]

    2017, , 850, 150

    Baudino , J.-L., Molli \`e re , P., Venot , O., et al. 2017, , 850, 150

    2017

  5. [13]

    B \'e jar , V. J. S., Zapatero Osorio , M. R., P \'e rez-Garrido , A., et al. 2008, , 673, L185

    2008

  6. [14]

    K., Follette , K

    Betti , S. K., Follette , K. B., Ward-Duong , K., et al. 2022, , 935, L18

    2022

  7. [15]

    2017, The Astronomical Review, 13, 1

    Biller , B. 2017, The Astronomical Review, 13, 1

    2017

  8. [16]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 646, A15

    Blain, D., Charnay, B., & B \' e zard, B. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 646, A15

    2021

  9. [17]

    L., De Rosa , R

    Blunt , S., Nielsen , E. L., De Rosa , R. J., et al. 2017, , 153, 229

    2017

  10. [18]

    2016, , 593, A38

    Bonavita , M., Desidera , S., Thalmann , C., et al. 2016, , 593, A38

    2016

  11. [19]

    M., et al

    Bonnefoy , M., Chauvin , G., Lagrange , A. M., et al. 2014, , 562, A127

    2014

  12. [20]

    2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 512

    Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., Rojo, P., et al. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 512

    2010

  13. [21]

    Booth, M., Del Burgo, C., & Hambaryan, V. V. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 5552

    2021

  14. [22]

    Boss , A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836

    1997

  15. [23]

    P., Blunt , S

    Bowler , B. P., Blunt , S. C., & Nielsen , E. L. 2020, , 159, 63

    2020

  16. [24]

    L., Hartmann, L., Stauffer, J

    Briceno, C., Luhman, K. L., Hartmann, L., Stauffer, J. R., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, 317

    2002

  17. [25]

    B., et al

    Burrows , A., Marley , M., Hubbard , W. B., et al. 1997, , 491, 856

    1997

  18. [26]

    2005, in The Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later, ed

    Chabrier, G. 2005, in The Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later, ed. E. Corbelli, F. Palla, & H. Zinnecker (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 41--50

    2005

  19. [27]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Chabrier , G., Johansen , A., Janson , M., & Rafikov , R. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 619--642

    2014

  20. [28]

    H., Worthen , K., et al

    Chai , Y., Chen , C. H., Worthen , K., et al. 2024, , 976, 167

    2024

  21. [29]

    L., et al

    Charnay , B., B \'e zard , B., Baudino , J. L., et al. 2018, , 854, 172

    2018

  22. [30]

    M., Dumas , C., et al

    Chauvin , G., Lagrange , A. M., Dumas , C., et al. 2004, , 425, L29

    2004

  23. [31]

    M., Zuckerman , B., et al

    Chauvin , G., Lagrange , A. M., Zuckerman , B., et al. 2005, , 438, L29

    2005

  24. [32]

    C., Kraus, A

    Cheetham, A. C., Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., et al. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, 813, 762

    2015

  25. [33]

    1998, , 335, 647

    Claret , A. 1998, , 335, 647

    1998

  26. [34]

    J., Pudritz, R

    Cridland, A. J., Pudritz, R. E., Birnstiel, T., Cleeves, L. I., & Bergin, E. A. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 3910

    2017

  27. [35]

    P., et al

    Czesla , S., Schr \"o ter , S., Schneider , C. P., et al. 2019, PyA: Python astronomy-related packages

    2019

  28. [36]

    da Silva , L., Torres , C. A. O., de La Reza , R., et al. 2009, , 508, 833

    2009

  29. [37]

    H., et al

    Delorme , P., Gagn \'e , J., Girard , J. H., et al. 2013, , 553, L5

    2013

  30. [38]

    2023, , 680, A64

    Desgrange, C., Milli, J., Chauvin, G., et al. 2023, , 680, A64

    2023

  31. [39]

    2011, , 526, A103

    D'Orazi , V., Biazzo , K., & Randich , S. 2011, , 526, A103

    2011

  32. [40]

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

    Eisenhauer , F., Abuter , R., Bickert , K., 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 , 1548--1561

    2003

  33. [41]

    C., Asensio Torres , R., Janson , M., et al

    Eriksson , S. C., Asensio Torres , R., Janson , M., et al. 2020, , 638, L6

    2020

  34. [42]

    K., Cruz , K

    Faherty , J. K., Cruz , K. L., Rice , E. L., & Riedel , A. 2013, , 84, 955

    2013

  35. [43]

    C., Rice , E

    Filippazzo , J. C., Rice , E. L., Faherty , J., et al. 2015, , 810, 158

    2015

  36. [44]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. & Massa , D. 2007, , 663, 320

    2007

  37. [45]

    Gagn \'e , J., Fontaine , G., Simon , A., & Faherty , J. K. 2018, , 861, L13

    2018

  38. [46]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, aap, 649, A1

    2021

  39. [47]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  40. [48]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05114

    Gandhi , S., de Regt , S., Snellen , I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05114

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2023, , 957, L36

    Gandhi , S., de Regt , S., Snellen , I., et al. 2023, , 957, L36

    2023

  42. [50]

    H., Baron , E., & Allard , F

    Hauschildt , P. H., Baron , E., & Allard , F. 1997, , 483, 390

    1997

  43. [51]

    & Nakano , T

    Hayashi , C. & Nakano , T. 1963, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 30, 460

    1963

  44. [52]

    2008, , 391, 1854

    Helling , C., Ackerman , A., Allard , F., et al. 2008, , 391, 1854

    2008

  45. [53]

    Hoch , K. K. W., Konopacky , Q. M., Theissen , C. A., et al. 2023, , 166, 85

    2023

  46. [54]

    J., Kraus, A., Martinache, F., Law, N., & Hillenbrand, L

    Ireland, M. J., Kraus, A., Martinache, F., Law, N., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2011, Astrophysical Journal, 726

    2011

  47. [55]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 620, 984

    Itoh, Y., Hayashi, M., Tamura, M., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 620, 984

    2005

  48. [56]

    J., et al

    Karalidi , T., Marley , M., Fortney , J. J., et al. 2021, , 923, 269

    2021

  49. [57]

    2024, , 685, A120

    Kiefer , F., Bonnefoy , M., Charnay , B., et al. 2024, , 685, A120

    2024

  50. [58]

    L., Shkolnik, E

    Kraus, A. L., Shkolnik, E. L., Allers, K. N., & Liu, M. C. 2014, Astronomical Journal, 147

    2014

  51. [59]

    Kumar, S. S. 2002, in IAU Symposium 211 : Brown Dwarfs

    2002

  52. [60]

    R., Lafreni \` e re, D., Gagn \' e , J., et al

    Lachapelle, F. R., Lafreni \` e re, D., Gagn \' e , J., et al. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, 802

    2015

  53. [61]

    2011, , 730, 42

    Lafreni \`e re , D., Jayawardhana , R., Janson , M., et al. 2011, , 730, 42

    2011

  54. [62]

    M., Kiefer , F., Rubini , P., et al

    Lagrange , A. M., Kiefer , F., Rubini , P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.10488

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    L., Babusiaux , C., & Cox , N

    Lallement , R., Vergely , J. L., Babusiaux , C., & Cox , N. L. J. 2022, , 661, A147

    2022

  56. [64]

    2020, , 641, A131

    Lazzoni , C., Zurlo , A., Desidera , S., et al. 2020, , 641, A131

    2020

  57. [65]

    C., Thi , W

    Lebreton , J., Augereau , J. C., Thi , W. F., et al. 2012, , 539, A17

    2012

  58. [66]

    2009, , 506, 385

    Leconte , J., Baraffe , I., Chabrier , G., Barman , T., & Levrard , B. 2009, , 506, 385

    2009

  59. [67]

    C., Magnier, E

    Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., Deacon, N. R., et al. 2013, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 777

    2013

  60. [68]

    2010, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol

    Lodders , K. 2010, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol. 16, Principles and Perspectives in Cosmochemistry, ed. A. Goswami & B. E. Reddy , 379

    2010

  61. [69]

    D., & Hambly, N

    Lodieu, N., Dobbie, P. D., & Hambly, N. C. 2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 527, 1

    2011

  62. [70]

    D., Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D

    Lothringer, J. D., Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 12

    2021

  63. [71]

    J., Schneider, G., Kirkpatrick, J

    Lowrance, P. J., Schneider, G., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 541, 390

    2000

  64. [72]

    L., Brice \ n o , C., Stauffer , J

    Luhman , K. L., Brice \ n o , C., Stauffer , J. R., et al. 2003, , 590, 348

    2003

  65. [73]

    Luhman, K. L. & Mamajek, E. E. 2010, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 716

    2010

  66. [74]

    L., Mamajek, E

    Luhman, K. L., Mamajek, E. E., Allen, P. R., Muench, A. A., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 691, 1265

    2009

  67. [75]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 36

    Madhusudhan, N. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 36

    2012

  68. [76]

    Manjavacas, E., Lodieu, N., Béjar, V. J. S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5925

    2019

  69. [77]

    Marleau , G.-D., Coleman , G. A. L., Leleu , A., & Mordasini , C. 2019, , 624, A20

    2019

  70. [78]

    Marley, M. S. & McKay, C. P. 1999, Icarus, 138, 268

    1999

  71. [79]

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

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

    2021

  72. [80]

    C., Mace, G

    Martin, E. C., Mace, G. N., McLean, I. S., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 838, 73

    2017

  73. [81]

    Martinez , R. A. & Kraus , A. L. 2022, , 163, 36

    2022

  74. [82]

    E., Biller, B

    Miles, B. E., Biller, B. A., Patapis, P., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L6

    2023

  75. [83]

    2022, , 934, 74

    Molli \`e re , P., Molyarova , T., Bitsch , B., et al. 2022, , 934, 74

    2022

  76. [84]

    & Mordasini , C

    Molli \`e re , P. & Mordasini , C. 2012, , 547, A105

    2012

  77. [85]

    & Snellen , I

    Molli \`e re , P. & Snellen , I. A. G. 2019, , 622, A139

    2019

  78. [86]

    V., Mukherjee , S., Marley , M

    Morley , C. V., Mukherjee , S., Marley , M. S., et al. 2024, , 975, 59

    2024

  79. [87]

    J., Morley , C

    Mukherjee , S., Fortney , J. J., Morley , C. V., et al. 2024, , 963, 73

    2024

  80. [88]

    2024, , 687, A298

    Nasedkin , E., Molli \`e re , P., Lacour , S., et al. 2024, , 687, A298

    2024

  81. [89]

    Neuh \"a user , R., Ginski , C., Schmidt , T. O. B., & Mugrauer , M. 2011, , 416, 1430

    2011

  82. [90]

    L., De Rosa, R

    Nielsen, E. L., De Rosa, R. J., Macintosh, B., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 13

    2019

  83. [91]

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

    \"O berg , K. I., Murray-Clay , R., & Bergin , E. A. 2011, , 743, L16

    2011

  84. [92]

    L., & Åke Nordlund

    Padoan, P., Kritsuk, A., Norman, M. L., & Åke Nordlund. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, L61

    2005

  85. [93]

    2023, , 670, A90

    Palma-Bifani , P., Chauvin , G., Bonnefoy , M., et al. 2023, , 670, A90

    2023

  86. [94]

    2024, , 683, A214

    Palma-Bifani , P., Chauvin , G., Borja , D., et al. 2024, , 683, A214

    2024

  87. [95]

    R., De Rosa , R

    Patience , J., King , R. R., De Rosa , R. J., et al. 2012, , 540, A85

    2012

  88. [96]

    R., De Rosa, R

    Patience, J., King, R. R., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2012, , 540, A85

    2012

  89. [97]

    2020, , 633, A124

    Petrus , S., Bonnefoy , M., Chauvin , G., et al. 2020, , 633, A124

    2020

  90. [98]

    2021, , 648, A59

    Petrus , S., Bonnefoy , M., Chauvin , G., et al. 2021, , 648, A59

    2021

  91. [99]

    2024, , 966, L11

    Petrus , S., Whiteford , N., Patapis , P., et al. 2024, , 966, L11

    2024

  92. [100]

    B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al

    Pollack , J. B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al. 1996, , 124, 62

    1996

  93. [101]

    P., Goldman, B., Henning, T., et al

    Quanz, S. P., Goldman, B., Henning, T., et al. 2010, Astrophysical Journal, 708, 770

    2010

  94. [102]

    R., & Mart \' n , E

    Rebolo , R., Zapatero Osorio , M. R., & Mart \' n , E. L. 1995, , 377, 129

    1995

  95. [103]

    L., Barman, T., Mclean, I

    Rice, E. L., Barman, T., Mclean, I. S., Prato, L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 186, 63–84

    2009

  96. [104]

    Rossow, W. B. 1978, Icarus, 36, 1

    1978

  97. [105]

    C., Best , W

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

    2023

  98. [106]

    2013, , 551, A34

    Sicilia-Aguilar , A., Henning , T., Linz , H., et al. 2013, , 551, A34

    2013

  99. [107]

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

    Spiegel , D. S., Burrows , A., & Milsom , J. A. 2011, , 727, 57

    2011

  100. [108]

    M., Eisner, J., Skemer, A., et al

    Stone, J. M., Eisner, J., Skemer, A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 39

    2016

  101. [109]

    K., Narang , M., et al

    Swastik , C., Banyal , R. K., Narang , M., et al. 2021, , 161, 114

    2021

  102. [110]

    Torres , C. A. O., Quast , G. R., da Silva , L., et al. 2006, , 460, 695

    2006

  103. [111]

    Torres , C. A. O., Quast , G. R., Melo , C. H. F., & Sterzik , M. F. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II, ed. B. Reipurth , Vol. 5 (ASPCS), 757

    2008

  104. [112]

    S., Mourier , P., et al

    Tremblin , P., Amundsen , D. S., Mourier , P., et al. 2015, , 804, L17

    2015

  105. [113]

    2017, , 850, 46

    Tremblin , P., Chabrier , G., Baraffe , I., et al. 2017, , 850, 46

    2017

  106. [114]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 40

    Turrini, D., Schisano, E., Fonte, S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 40

    2021

  107. [115]

    & Mulders , G

    van der Marel , N. & Mulders , G. D. 2021, , 162, 28

    2021

  108. [116]

    G., Stolker , T., Jensen-Clem , R., et al

    van Holstein , R. G., Stolker , T., Jensen-Clem , R., et al. 2021, , 647, A21

    2021

  109. [117]

    2012, A&A, 546, A43

    Venot, O., Hébrard, E., Agúndez, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 546, A43

    2012

  110. [118]

    C., Melo , C., et al

    Viana Almeida , P., Santos , N. C., Melo , C., et al. 2009, , 501, 965

    2009

  111. [119]

    M., Biller , B

    Vos , J. M., Biller , B. A., Allers , K. N., et al. 2020, , 160, 38

    2020

  112. [120]

    C., Biller, B

    Wahhaj, Z., Liu, M. C., Biller, B. A., et al. 2011, Astrophysical Journal, 729

    2011

  113. [121]

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

    Wang , J. J., Ruffio , J.-B., Morris , E., et al. 2021, , 162, 148

    2021

  114. [122]

    2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 143, 9

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 143, 9

    2000

  115. [123]

    G., M \'e nard , F., Caceres , C., et al

    Wolff , S. G., M \'e nard , F., Caceres , C., et al. 2017, , 154, 26

    2017

  116. [124]

    P., Sheehan, P

    Wu, Y.-L., Bowler, B. P., Sheehan, P. D., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 229

    2020

  117. [125]

    2023, , 166, 143

    Wu , Y.-L., Cheng , Y.-C., Huang , L.-C., et al. 2023, , 166, 143

    2023

  118. [126]

    W., Bryan , M

    Xuan , J. W., Bryan , M. L., Knutson , H. A., et al. 2020, , 159, 97

    2020

  119. [127]

    W., M \'e rand , A., Thompson , W., et al

    Xuan , J. W., M \'e rand , A., Thompson , W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.11953

    2024 arXiv

  120. [128]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 246

    Zhang, Y., González Picos, D., de Regt, S., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 246

    2024

  121. [129]

    2022, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Zhang , Y., Snellen , I., & Molli \`e re , P. 2022, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 54, 208.04

    2022

  122. [130]

    & Song , I

    Zuckerman , B. & Song , I. 2004, , 42, 685

    2004

  123. [131]

    Zuckerman , B., Song , I., & Bessell , M. S. 2004, , 613, L65

    2004

  124. [132]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  125. [133]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.