pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.03767 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Discovery of a Low-Mass Companion to the Accelerating Star HIP 53005 with Strongly Conflicting Mass Estimates

Taichi Uyama , Thayne Currie , Jerry W. Xuan , Robert De Rosa , Masayuki Kuzuhara , Minghan Chen , Vito Squicciarini , Charles Beichman
show 17 more authors
Timothy D. Brandt Vincent Deo Olivier Guyon Teruyuki Hirano Markus Janson Michael C. Liu Dimitri Mawet Julien Lozi Stevanus Nugroho Motohide Tamura Sebastien Vievard Danielle Bovie Yasunori Hori Hajime Kawahara Takayuki Kotani Yiting Li Jason Wang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 17:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords direct imagingHIP 53005brown dwarfstellar companionmass discrepancyorbital fittinghydrogen-burning limitproper motion acceleration
0
0 comments X

The pith

The companion HIP 53005 C shows ~80 Jupiter masses from brightness but ~185 from orbital dynamics.

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

The paper reports the discovery of a low-mass companion to the star HIP 53005 at a projected separation of about 62 au using direct imaging from Subaru and Keck. Color-magnitude diagrams, spectral energy distribution modeling, and empirical mass-magnitude relations all place the companion near the hydrogen-burning limit at roughly 80 Jupiter masses. Orbital fitting that combines the imaging astrometry with the star's measured proper-motion acceleration instead yields a dynamical mass near 185 Jupiter masses. The large mismatch implies either an undetected companion orbiting closer than 0.2 arcsec or that the imaged object is itself a binary. Resolving which case applies would clarify mass estimation reliability at the stellar-substellar boundary.

Core claim

We present the discovery of HIP 53005 C at rho approximately 0.85 arcsec from the early-type star HIP 53005. Its location on color-magnitude diagrams, the fit of its spectral energy distribution to atmosphere models, and its position on an empirical mass-magnitude diagram all indicate a mass near the hydrogen-burning limit of about 80 Jupiter masses. Orbital fitting that incorporates direct-imaging relative astrometry together with proper-motion acceleration from the Hipparcos-Gaia Catalog of Accelerations instead favors a dynamical mass of approximately 185 Jupiter masses. The discrepancy may be explained by an additional unseen companion at rho less than or equal to 0.2 arcsec or by HIP 0

What carries the argument

The contrast between photometric and spectral-energy-distribution mass estimates versus dynamical mass derived from combined direct-imaging astrometry and proper-motion acceleration.

If this is right

  • An undetected companion at separation less than or equal to 0.2 arcsec may be contributing to the observed acceleration.
  • HIP 53005 C could itself be a close binary similar to Gliese 229B.
  • The system offers a test case for how mass estimates behave near the hydrogen-burning limit when both photometric and dynamical data are available.
  • Multiple-star formation channels may be required to explain objects whose light and orbit data disagree on mass.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Follow-up observations at higher angular resolution could directly detect or rule out a closer companion and settle the mass.
  • If the companion is binary, the result would support formation models in which objects near the stellar limit commonly form in pairs.
  • Similar mass discrepancies may exist in other accelerating stars that have only one imaged companion.

Load-bearing premise

The observed proper-motion acceleration is produced entirely by the imaged companion at 0.85 arcsec with no contribution from any undetected closer object.

What would settle it

High-resolution imaging or spectroscopy that either resolves a second companion inside 0.2 arcsec or shows HIP 53005 C as a spectroscopic binary with total mass near 185 Jupiter masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03767 by Charles Beichman, Danielle Bovie, Dimitri Mawet, Hajime Kawahara, Jason Wang, Jerry W. Xuan, Julien Lozi, Markus Janson, Masayuki Kuzuhara, Michael C. Liu, Minghan Chen, Motohide Tamura, Olivier Guyon, Robert De Rosa, Sebastien Vievard, Stevanus Nugroho, Taichi Uyama, Takayuki Kotani, Teruyuki Hirano, Thayne Currie, Timothy D. Brandt, Vincent Deo, Vito Squicciarini, Yasunori Hori, Yiting Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Estimation of the stellar rotation velocity from the IRD spectra. ate ADI post-processing with local pixel masking (see Currie et al. 2018, for details) to avoid heavy self-subtraction while preserving a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). With pyKLIP, we adopted low Karhunen-Loeve (KL) modes ( ` KL ≤ 5, see Soummer et al. 2012) that did not apply aggressive PSF re￾ductions. We did not apply spectral differe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: CMD for HIP 53005 A and B. Overplotted, PARSEC tracks and isochrones of different ages and masses. The position of B in the diagram is crucial to break the degeneracy for the system age. 3.2. Archival Data of 2MASS, Pan-STARRS, and Gaia To identify any very wide-separation companions to HIP 53005, we examined archival 2MASS, Pan-STARRS, and Gaia data. These data resolved a point source located ∼ 12′′ from … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ADI-reduced CHARIS (left) and NIRC2 (right) images of HIP 53005C. The central star is masked by the algorithm, north is up and east is left. 0 1 J H 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MJ 80 MJ 90 MJ 80 MJ 90 MJ 100 MJ 200 MJ HIP 53005C HIP 53005B AMES-Cond (1.3E+3 Myr) AMES-Dusty (1.3E+3 Myr) M5-M9 L0-L4 L5-L9 0 1 2 J K 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MJ 80 MJ 90 MJ 80 MJ 90 MJ 100 MJ 200 MJ HIP 53005C HIP 53005B AMES-Cond (1.3E+3… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Color-magnitude diagram of the HIP 53005 companions overlaid with the spectral library of low-mass objects (dots) and the AMES isochrones (blue: AMES-Cond, orange: AMES-Dusty; Baraffe et al. 2003; Chabrier et al. 2000), made from species. The solid line and the indicated mass correspond to the best-fit age (1.3 Gyr) and the dashed and dotted lines indicate the age range (dotted line: 1.1 Gyr, dashed line: … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left) Best-fit modeled atmosphere within DRIFT-PHOENIX (light orange), BT-SETTL (light blue), and BT-DUSTY (purple) to the observed SED of HIP 53005C with interpolation between the grid points of the models, made with species. The spectro-photometric data are overplotted (green for Subaru/CHARIS, orange for Keck/NIRC2), with the low-S/N channels of the CHARIS spectrum excluded from the fit ( [PITH_FULL_I… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: , see also Section 5.2). The discrepancy with the orbital fit, together with the radii inferred from the atmo￾spheric models, raises the possibility that HIP 53005 C is an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the common proper-motion test assuming a background star has a zero proper motion. The latest￾epoch relative astrometry is significantly offset from the ex￾pected position of a background star case, verifying that HIP 53005C is bound to the central star. The companion’s relative astrometry may show some tension with smooth or￾bital motion, which could be evidence for systematic errors in astrometric … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Modeled orbits of the companion HIP 53005C from fitting the Hipparcos-Gaia proper motion acceleration and relative astrometry with Subaru/CHARIS and Keck/NIRC2 (left: projected orbit, middle: separation, right: position angle). The color scale corresponds to the simulated mass of the companion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Corner plot of the orbital fitting result. and produced lightkurve objects (Lightkurve Collaboration et al. 2018, data DOI: 10.17909/4r8e-f876) with the default aperture size, which was processed by removing instrumen￾tal effects and outliers that arose from the star crossing at the edge of the TESS FoV. We did not find any signature of vari￾ability larger than 1% in the TESS lightcurves. Also, our IRD sp… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: TESS light curves of HIP 53005 (TIC 95858053) show￾ing no significant variability on the central star at Sector 22 (top) and 48 (bottom). 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Separation [arcsec] 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 Contrast J band H band K band Broadband [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 5σ contrast limit of the CHARIS ADI+SDI reduction. The dashed lines correspond to the contrast limit at each CHARIS channel and the solid lines correspond to that from the combined image at J, H, K, and the full CHARIS channels. The star symbol indicates HIP 53005C with the H-band contrast. tures suggesting additional sources. If C is a binary, it should be a very tight system whose separation is smaller … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Best-fit forward modeled PSF to the CHARIS HIP 53005 C data taken on May 9, 2021. The left panel shows the ADI reduced CHARIS data, the middle panel shows the best-fit forward model and the right panel shows the residuals. The data reduction and astrometry fitting are carried out using pyKLIP (Wang et al. 2015) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of the CHARIS JHK-band spectra and the NIRC2 K′ -band photometry (left) and NIRC2 L ′ -band photometry (right) at different epochs. Note that the dips at ∼ 1.4 µm and ∼ 1.9 µm in the 2021 CHARIS spectrum are due to atmospheric absorptions of the Earth. under support from the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas #2302. SCExAO’s adaptive optics loops and high-speed data acquis… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the discovery of a low-mass companion located at $\rho$ $\sim$ 0\farcs{}85 ($r_{\rm proj} \approx 62~au$) from the early-type 1.2 Gyr-old star HIP 53005 using direct imaging data from the Subaru and Keck Telescopes and astrometry from the Hipparcos-Gaia Catalog of Accelerations. The companion, HIP 53005 C, is a component of a multiple system also including a $\approx$ 12\farcs{}4-separation M dwarf companion inducing a negligible proper motion acceleration. HIP~53005 C's position on color-magnitude diagrams, the fit of its spectral energy distribution to atmosphere models, and its location on an empirical mass-magnitude diagram all suggest that it lies at the M/L transition and near the hydrogen-burning limit ($\sim80~M_{\rm Jup}$). However, our orbital fitting combining direct-imaging relative astrometry with proper motion acceleration favors a much higher dynamical mass of $\sim185\ M_{\rm Jup}$. An additional unseen, more closely-orbiting companion below the detection limit (at $\rho\lesssim0\farcs2$)) may explain this discrepancy. Alternatively, HIP~53005C could be a low-mass binary like Gliese~229Bab, making this system an intriguing laboratory for studying multiple star formation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of a low-mass companion HIP 53005 C at projected separation ~62 au (ρ ~ 0.85″) to the early-type star HIP 53005 using Subaru/Keck direct imaging and Hipparcos-Gaia acceleration astrometry. Photometric placement on color-magnitude diagrams, SED fitting to atmosphere models, and empirical mass-magnitude relations all indicate a mass near the hydrogen-burning limit (~80 M_Jup). However, orbital fitting that combines the relative astrometry with the observed proper-motion acceleration yields a dynamical mass of ~185 M_Jup. The authors interpret the discrepancy as evidence for either an undetected inner companion (ρ ≲ 0.2″) or binarity of the imaged object itself.

Significance. If the reported mass tension is robust, the system would serve as a valuable laboratory for testing formation scenarios near the stellar-substellar boundary and for the occurrence of hierarchical multiples. The integration of direct-imaging astrometry with acceleration data is a methodological strength, and the explicit discussion of the possible inner companion is appropriately cautious. However, the significance is limited by the lack of quantitative validation for the single-companion acceleration model.

major comments (2)
  1. Orbital fitting and acceleration modeling: The dynamical mass of ~185 M_Jup is derived under the assumption that the full Hipparcos-Gaia proper-motion acceleration is produced solely by the detected companion at ρ ≈ 0.85″ (with the 12.4″ M dwarf stated to contribute negligibly). No Monte Carlo injection tests or covariance analysis quantifying the possible acceleration contribution from an undetected object at ρ ≲ 0.2″ are presented; such tests are required because even a modest inner contribution would lower the mass required for the imaged companion and reduce or eliminate the reported tension.
  2. Photometric and SED mass derivation: The ~80 M_Jup estimate relies on color-magnitude diagram placement, atmosphere-model SED fits, and an empirical mass-magnitude relation for a 1.2 Gyr age. The manuscript does not provide a propagated uncertainty budget that includes age uncertainty, model systematics, or photometric errors, making it difficult to assess whether the photometric mass is statistically inconsistent with the dynamical value at the claimed level.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation consistency: The abstract and text alternate between “HIP 53005 C” and “HIP~53005C”; a uniform designation should be adopted throughout.
  2. Figure clarity: Error bars on the companion photometry in the color-magnitude diagram (likely Figure 2 or 3) are not described in the caption; adding them would allow readers to judge the significance of the CMD placement relative to the hydrogen-burning limit.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. The two major comments identify important areas where the current analysis can be strengthened with additional quantitative validation. We address each point below and will incorporate the requested material in a revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Orbital fitting and acceleration modeling: The dynamical mass of ~185 M_Jup is derived under the assumption that the full Hipparcos-Gaia proper-motion acceleration is produced solely by the detected companion at ρ ≈ 0.85″ (with the 12.4″ M dwarf stated to contribute negligibly). No Monte Carlo injection tests or covariance analysis quantifying the possible acceleration contribution from an undetected object at ρ ≲ 0.2″ are presented; such tests are required because even a modest inner contribution would lower the mass required for the imaged companion and reduce or eliminate the reported tension.

    Authors: We agree that the current orbital fit assumes the observed acceleration is produced entirely by the imaged companion at ~0.85″. While the 12.4″ M dwarf is shown to induce negligible acceleration in the manuscript, we did not perform the Monte Carlo injection tests or covariance analysis for possible inner companions at ρ ≲ 0.2″. We will add these tests in the revised manuscript, injecting synthetic inner companions across a range of masses and separations, recomputing the acceleration contribution, and re-deriving the dynamical mass of the outer companion to quantify how much the reported tension could be reduced. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Photometric and SED mass derivation: The ~80 M_Jup estimate relies on color-magnitude diagram placement, atmosphere-model SED fits, and an empirical mass-magnitude relation for a 1.2 Gyr age. The manuscript does not provide a propagated uncertainty budget that includes age uncertainty, model systematics, or photometric errors, making it difficult to assess whether the photometric mass is statistically inconsistent with the dynamical value at the claimed level.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the photometric mass derivation does not include a full propagated uncertainty budget. The 1.2 Gyr age is taken from the literature for the primary, but its uncertainty, together with model systematics in the atmosphere grids and photometric measurement errors, were not formally propagated. In the revision we will construct and present a comprehensive uncertainty budget that folds in these contributions (via Monte Carlo sampling over age, model grids, and photometry) and will report the resulting range on the photometric mass so that the tension with the dynamical value can be assessed quantitatively. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Masses from independent photometric/SED data and orbital fit to astrometry+acceleration; no equation reduces one to the other

full rationale

The ~80 M_Jup photometric mass is obtained by placing the companion on color-magnitude diagrams, fitting its SED to atmosphere models, and using an empirical mass-magnitude relation; none of these steps reference the orbital solution or acceleration data. The ~185 M_Jup dynamical mass is the output of a standard orbital fit that ingests two independent observables: relative astrometry from direct imaging and the Hipparcos-Gaia proper-motion acceleration vector. The acceleration is treated as an external constraint produced by the companion's gravity; the fit solves for mass (and other elements) rather than deriving the acceleration from the photometric mass. The paper explicitly flags the single-companion assumption as potentially incomplete and lists an undetected inner object as a viable resolution, so the tension is presented as an empirical discrepancy rather than a definitional identity. No self-citations are invoked to justify uniqueness or to close the derivation loop, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of bound orbital motion and single-companion dominance of the acceleration signal; no new physical entities are postulated beyond the possible unseen companion mentioned as a hypothesis.

free parameters (1)
  • dynamical mass = ~185 M_Jup
    Fitted value obtained by combining relative astrometry with Hipparcos-Gaia acceleration; central to the reported discrepancy.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Observed proper-motion acceleration is produced entirely by the imaged companion at 0.85 arcsec
    Invoked when converting acceleration into dynamical mass; if false the mass estimate collapses.
invented entities (1)
  • unseen inner companion at rho less than or equal to 0.2 arcsec no independent evidence
    purpose: To reconcile the photometric and dynamical mass estimates
    Suggested as one possible resolution but remains undetected and without independent confirmation in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5680 in / 1437 out tokens · 70534 ms · 2026-05-13T17:13:55.371203+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    HIP 53005 C's position on color-magnitude diagrams, the fit of its spectral energy distribution to atmosphere models, and its location on an empirical mass-magnitude diagram all suggest ... ~80 MJup. However, our orbital fitting ... favors a much higher dynamical mass of ~185 MJup.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0269 2012

  2. [2]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030252 2003

  3. [3]

    P., Endl, M., Cochran, W

    Bowler, B. P., Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., et al. 2021, ApJL, 913, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfec8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abfec8 2021

  4. [4]

    M., Dupuy, T

    Brandt, G. M., Dupuy, T. J., Li, Y ., et al. 2021a, AJ, 162, 301, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac273e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac273e

  5. [5]

    Brandt, T. D. 2018, ApJS, 239, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06 —. 2021, ApJS, 254, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06 2018

  6. [6]

    D., Dupuy, T

    Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., & Bowler, B. P. 2019, AJ, 158, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab04a8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab04a8 2019

  7. [7]

    D., Dupuy, T

    Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., Bowler, B. P., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb45e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abb45e 2020

  8. [8]

    D., Dupuy, T

    Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., Li, Y ., et al. 2021b, AJ, 162, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac042e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac042e

  9. [9]

    D., Rizzo, M., Groff, T., et al

    Brandt, T. D., Rizzo, M., Groff, T., et al. 2017, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 3, 048002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.3.4.048002

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.3.4.048002 2017

  10. [10]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 464, doi: 10.1086/309513

    Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. 2000, ApJ, 542, 464, doi: 10.1086/309513

    work page doi:10.1086/309513 2000

  11. [11]

    2018, A&A, 614, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630136

    Cheetham, A., S´egransan, D., Peretti, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630136

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630136 2018

  12. [12]

    J., Brandt, T

    Chen, M., Wang, J. J., Brandt, T. D., et al. 2023, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 2, 620, doi: 10.1093/rasti/rzad039

    work page doi:10.1093/rasti/rzad039 2023

  13. [13]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  14. [14]

    R., Johnson, J

    Crepp, J. R., Johnson, J. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/1/29 2014

  15. [15]

    2023a, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Currie, T., Biller, B., Lagrange, A., et al. 2023a, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 799, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.05696

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.05696

  16. [16]

    D., Uyama, T., et al

    Currie, T., Brandt, T. D., Uyama, T., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 291, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae9ea

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae9ea 2018

  17. [17]

    D., Kuzuhara, M., et al

    Currie, T., Brandt, T. D., Kuzuhara, M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 904, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc631

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abc631 2020

  18. [18]

    M., Brandt, T

    Currie, T., Brandt, G. M., Brandt, T. D., et al. 2023b, Science, 380, 198, doi: 10.1126/science.abo6192

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abo6192

  19. [19]

    2026, AJ, 171, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae1a82 De Rosa, R

    Currie, T., Li, Y ., El Morsy, M., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae1a82 De Rosa, R. J., Nielsen, E. L., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345877

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae1a82 2026

  20. [20]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  21. [21]

    J., & Kraus, A

    Dupuy, T. J., & Kraus, A. L. 2013, Science, 341, 1492, doi: 10.1126/science.1241917

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1241917 2013

  22. [22]

    J., & Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., & Liu, M. C. 2012, ApJS, 201, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/19 —. 2017, ApJS, 231, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa5e4c Ekstr¨om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117751 El Morsy, M., Currie, T., Lacy, B., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae195f

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/19 2012

  23. [23]

    Feiden, G. A. 2016, A&A, 593, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527613

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527613 2016

  24. [24]

    P., Bonavita, M., et al

    Franson, K., Bowler, B. P., Bonavita, M., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca408 Gagn´e, J., Mamajek, E. E., Malo, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae09 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., ...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca408 2023

  25. [25]

    2019, A&A, 626, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834898 14 U YAMA ET AL

    Gallet, F., & Delorme, P. 2019, A&A, 626, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834898 14 U YAMA ET AL

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834898 2019

  26. [26]

    D., Kasdin, N

    Groff, T. D., Kasdin, N. J., Limbach, M. A., et al. 2015, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    9605, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets VII, ed

    Series, V ol. 9605, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets VII, ed. S. Shaklan, 96051C, doi: 10.1117/12.2188465

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2188465

  28. [28]

    Hauschildt, P. H. 1992, JQSRT, 47, 433, doi: 10.1016/0022-4073(92)90105-D

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-4073(92)90105-d 1992

  29. [29]

    2020, PASJ, 72, 93, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa085

    Hirano, T., Kuzuhara, M., Kotani, T., et al. 2020, PASJ, 72, 93, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa085

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psaa085 2020

  30. [30]

    2015, PASP, 127, 890, doi: 10.1086/682989

    Jovanovic, N., Martinache, F., Guyon, O., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 890, doi: 10.1086/682989

    work page doi:10.1086/682989 2015

  31. [31]

    G., Bouma, L

    Kounkel, M., Stassun, K. G., Bouma, L. G., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac866d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac866d 2022

  32. [32]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1979, ApJS, 40, 1, doi: 10.1086/190589

    work page doi:10.1086/190589 1979

  33. [33]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Kuzuhara, M., Hirano, T., Kotani, T., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed

    Series, V ol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 1070260, doi: 10.1117/12.2311832

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2311832

  35. [35]

    H., Glatzle, M., & Enßlin, T

    Leike, R. H., Glatzle, M., & Enßlin, T. A. 2020, A&A, 639, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038169 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V . d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038169 2020

  36. [36]

    C., Dupuy, T

    Liu, M. C., Dupuy, T. J., & Allers, K. N. 2016, ApJ, 833, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/96

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/96 2016

  37. [37]

    W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A

    Mann, A. W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc 2019

  38. [38]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 556, doi: 10.1086/500401

    Marois, C., Lafreni`ere, D., Doyon, R., Macintosh, B., & Nadeau, D. 2006, ApJ, 641, 556, doi: 10.1086/500401

    work page doi:10.1086/500401 2006

  39. [39]

    O., Griffin, R

    McGahee, C., Gray, R. O., Griffin, R. E. M., Birchard, M., & Day, J. 2020, AJ, 160, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab974c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab974c 2020

  40. [40]

    2023, A&A, 672, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345865

    Mesa, D., Gratton, R., Kervella, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345865

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345865 2023

  41. [41]

    T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al

    Nguyen, C. T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244166

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244166 2022

  42. [42]

    L., De Rosa, R

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab16e9 2019

  43. [43]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 117, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/117

    Pueyo, L. 2016, ApJ, 824, 117, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/117

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/117 2016

  44. [44]

    2015, ApJ, 803, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/31

    Pueyo, L., Soummer, R., Hoffmann, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/31 2015

  45. [45]

    Racine, R., Walker, G. A. H., Nadeau, D., Doyon, R., & Marois, C. 1999, PASP, 111, 587, doi: 10.1086/316367

    work page doi:10.1086/316367 1999

  46. [46]

    Renson, P., Gerbaldi, M., & Catalano, F. A. 1991, A&AS, 89, 429

    work page 1991

  47. [47]

    2009, A&A, 498, 961, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810788

    Renson, P., & Manfroid, J. 2009, A&A, 498, 961, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810788

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810788 2009

  48. [48]

    2017, AJ, 153, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/43

    Serabyn, E., Huby, E., Matthews, K., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/43

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/43 2017

  49. [49]

    R., Campbell, R., et al

    Service, M., Lu, J. R., Campbell, R., et al. 2016, PASP, 128, 095004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/967/095004

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/967/095004 2016

  50. [50]

    2012, ApJL, 755, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L28

    Soummer, R., Pueyo, L., & Larkin, J. 2012, ApJL, 755, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L28

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/l28 2012

  51. [51]

    S., & Burrows, A

    Spiegel, D. S., & Burrows, A. 2012, ApJ, 745, 174, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/174

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/174 2012

  52. [52]

    2022, A&A, 666, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244193

    Squicciarini, V ., & Bonavita, M. 2022, A&A, 666, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244193

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244193 2022

  53. [53]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7746

    Tokovinin, A. 2017, ApJ, 844, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7746

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7746 2017

  54. [54]

    A., & Fischer, D

    Valenti, J. A., & Fischer, D. A. 2005, ApJS, 159, 141, doi: 10.1086/430500

    work page doi:10.1086/430500 2005

  55. [55]

    Walker, S. A. U., Liu, M. C., Mawet, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.05191, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.05191

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.05191 2025

  56. [56]

    J., Ruffio, J.-B., De Rosa, R

    Wang, J. J., Ruffio, J.-B., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2015, in Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1506.001. http://ascl.net/1506.001

    work page 2015

  57. [57]

    J., Graham, J

    Wang, J. J., Graham, J. R., Pueyo, L., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 97, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/97

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/97 2016

  58. [58]

    D., Brandt, G

    Whitebook, S., Brandt, T. D., Brandt, G. M., & Martin, E. C. 2024, ApJL, 974, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7714

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7714 2024

  59. [59]

    Witte, S., Helling, C., Barman, T., Heidrich, N., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2011, A&A, 529, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014105

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014105 2011

  60. [60]

    W., M´erand, A., Thompson, W., et al

    Xuan, J. W., M´erand, A., Thompson, W., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 1070, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08064-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08064-x 2024