pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09785 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Direct Images of CO2 Absorption in the Atmosphere of a Super-Jupiter: Enhanced Metallicity Suggestive of Formation in a Disk

Aarynn Carter, Ashley Messier, Emily Rickman, Evelyn Bruinsma, Jarron M. Leisenring, Jens Kammerer, Jeremy Jones, Julien H. Girard, Kellen Lawson, Kielan K. W. Hoch, Kimberly Ward-Duong, Klara Matuszewska, Laurent Pueyo, Marshall D. Perrin, Mathilde M\^alin, Roeland P. van der Marel, Sara Seager, William O. Balmer

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords direct imagingexoplanet atmospheresmetallicity enhancementsuper-Jupiterprotoplanetary diskCO2 absorptionJWST NIRCam29 Cyg b
0
0 comments X

The pith

CO2 absorption strength shows the super-Jupiter 29 Cyg b is metal-enriched by a factor of three relative to its star.

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

The paper presents JWST/NIRCam coronagraphic images of the 29 Cygni system that capture the companion 29 Cyg b at 4-5 microns for the first time. Absorption from CO2 at 4.3 microns and CO at 4.6 microns appears in the data. The relative strength of the CO2 feature indicates the companion's atmosphere is enriched in heavy elements compared with the host star's roughly solar composition. This metallicity difference, together with the measured spin-orbit alignment, supports formation inside the protoplanetary disk through rapid accretion of metal-rich gas and solids. The result extends planet formation models to objects near the deuterium-burning limit around early-type stars.

Core claim

Direct imaging at wavelengths covering 4-5 microns reveals clear absorption from CO2 and CO in the atmosphere of 29 Cyg b. The CO2 feature is stronger relative to CO than expected for solar abundances, which empirical comparisons and atmospheric modeling translate into a metallicity enhancement of Z_b/Z_star = 3 ± 2. Combined with the system's spin-orbit alignment at the 2-sigma level, this points to formation within the protoplanetary disk and rapid accretion of metal-rich material, rather than disk fragmentation or capture.

What carries the argument

The ratio of CO2 absorption strength at 4.3 microns to CO absorption at 4.6 microns, interpreted through empirical comparisons to other objects and atmospheric models to infer atmospheric metallicity.

If this is right

  • Planet formation around early-type stars can reach or exceed the deuterium-burning limit when the object accretes metal-rich material from the disk.
  • The revised planetary mass-metallicity trend extending to high masses predicts Z_pl/Z_star around 3.3 at the upper end of the distribution.
  • Low mass-ratio companions form differently from higher mass-ratio objects that likely arise from fragmentation or capture.
  • Spin-orbit alignment is consistent with formation in a disk rather than later dynamical capture.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Repeated observations of other directly imaged companions near the deuterium limit could reveal whether metallicity enhancement is a common signature of disk formation.
  • Improvements in atmospheric retrieval codes might tighten the uncertainty on the factor-of-three enrichment and reduce model-dependent scatter.
  • The result suggests that metallicity measurements could become a practical discriminant between formation channels for objects in the 10-20 Jupiter-mass range.

Load-bearing premise

The observed CO2 to CO absorption ratio can be converted into a metallicity enhancement factor without large systematic errors from the atmospheric models or the data processing.

What would settle it

An independent determination of the companion's atmospheric or bulk metallicity, from additional spectral lines or from radius and mass measurements, that yields a value consistent with solar abundances rather than a factor-of-three enhancement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09785 by Aarynn Carter, Ashley Messier, Emily Rickman, Evelyn Bruinsma, Jarron M. Leisenring, Jens Kammerer, Jeremy Jones, Julien H. Girard, Kellen Lawson, Kielan K. W. Hoch, Kimberly Ward-Duong, Klara Matuszewska, Laurent Pueyo, Marshall D. Perrin, Mathilde M\^alin, Roeland P. van der Marel, Sara Seager, William O. Balmer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The 4-5 µm color of 29 Cyg b in context. (a) A deconvolved and smoothed three color composite. Blue is assigned to the F410M filter, green to the F430M filter, and red to the F460M in increasing wavelength; the brightness in each filter is in units of MJy/sr, normalized to the brightness of the companion in F410M. The location of 29 Cyg A, blocked by the LWBAR/narrow coronagraph, is marked by a cartoon sta… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparing the spectrum of 29 Cyg b to atmospheric models. Top: The transmission functions of the photometry considered in the fit. Middle: RCE models from the Sonora Diamondback are shown in blue and yellow, and a parametric model generated with petitRADTRANS is shown in purple. Observations from Subaru, the VLTI, Keck, and JWST are plotted in black and gray, and the models integrated across the filter tra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) The surface of the best model fit to the CHARA/PAVO observations of 29 Cygni A. Dots represent the grid of co-latitudes and longitudes facing the observer. Blue circles and errorbars represent radii fitted to each visibility measurement at a given baseline orientation. The observations are duplicated at 180◦ . (b) Spin-orbit alignment trend for planetary mass, directly imaged companions with orbits a <… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Coronagraphic images of 29 Cyg b with the JWST/NIRCam LWBAR coronagraph at the narrow offset position in the F210M, F410M, F430M, and F460M filters, respectively. leveraging the STPSF forward models from the photometric forward modeling step. These were then re-convolved with a Gaussian with a full-width half-max of 0.75 pixels, and normalized to the forward model photometry in each filter. B. ATMOSPHERIC … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

It is unclear how directly imaged substellar companions with masses near the deuterium burning limit form, because these objects are rare and their bulk properties are not diagnostic of their formation. In this paper we revisit this problem using JWST/NIRCam coronagraphic images of the 29 Cygni (=HIP 99770) system that reveal the recently-discovered super-Jovian companion 29 Cyg b at wavelengths covering 4-5${\mu}$m for the first time. This object has an uncertain mass that straddles the deuterium burning limit ($M_{\rm b}\simeq15\pm5\,M_{\rm J}$) and a low mass ratio with its early-type host star ($M_{\rm b}/M_\star\sim0.01$). Absorption from CO$_2$ and CO is apparent at 4.3 and 4.6${\mu}$m in our images. The strength of the CO$_2$ feature relative to CO provides strong evidence, based on empirical comparison with literature observations at these wavelengths and atmospheric modeling, that the companion is enriched in heavier elements compared to the roughly solar abundances of the host ($Z_{\rm b}/Z_\star=3\pm2$). In addition, we measure the stellar inclination angle with CHARA/PAVO interferometry: the system is consistent with spin-orbit alignment at the $2\,\sigma$ level, with $\Delta i=12\pm6^\circ$. This ensemble of evidence is suggestive of formation within the protoplanetary disk and rapid accretion of metal-rich material, versus disk fragmentation or capture like higher mass ratio companions. 29 Cyg b shows that planet formation around early-type stars can occur on scales at or exceeding the deuterium burning limit, in agreement with the recently revised planetary mass/metallicity trend that predicts $Z_{\rm pl}/Z_\star=3.3\pm0.5$ at high masses from transiting planet densities (Chachan et al. 2025).

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents JWST/NIRCam coronagraphic imaging of the 29 Cygni system at 4-5 μm, detecting CO2 absorption at 4.3 μm and CO at 4.6 μm in the atmosphere of the super-Jovian companion 29 Cyg b (M_b ≃ 15 ± 5 M_J). Using the relative strength of these features, combined with empirical comparisons to literature data and atmospheric modeling, the authors derive a metallicity ratio Z_b/Z_star = 3 ± 2. They additionally report a 2σ spin-orbit alignment (Δi = 12 ± 6°) from CHARA/PAVO interferometry and interpret the ensemble as evidence for disk formation with rapid accretion of metal-rich material, consistent with trends from transiting planets.

Significance. If the metallicity inference is robust, the result would strengthen the case that directly imaged companions near the deuterium-burning limit can form in protoplanetary disks around early-type stars, rather than via fragmentation. It adds a rare direct atmospheric constraint on composition for such objects and aligns with the revised mass-metallicity relation (Z_pl/Z_star ≈ 3.3 ± 0.5) from Chachan et al. (2025). The new 4-5 μm photometry expands the wavelength baseline for atmospheric characterization of wide-orbit super-Jupiters.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and results on metallicity] Abstract and results section on metallicity: The central claim that the CO2/CO absorption ratio provides 'strong evidence' for Z_b/Z_star = 3 ± 2 is not supported by the quoted uncertainty, which spans 1-5 and includes solar metallicity (Z=1) at ~1σ. The manuscript must show explicit model fits, chi-squared values, or posterior distributions demonstrating that Z=1 is excluded at higher , including systematic uncertainties from data reduction, atmospheric models, and the empirical comparison sample.
  2. [Atmospheric modeling section] Section on atmospheric modeling and empirical comparisons: The translation of the observed CO2 (4.3 μm) to CO (4.6 μm) ratio into a metallicity factor of 3 ± 2 relies on details of the atmospheric models and literature datasets that are not fully specified. A quantitative assessment of how model assumptions (e.g., temperature structure, cloud properties) affect the inferred Z_b/Z_star is required to establish that the result is not sensitive to these choices.
  3. [Discussion section] Discussion of formation implications: The 2σ spin-orbit alignment and mass ratio are presented as supporting disk formation, but no sensitivity analysis shows how the conclusion changes if the alignment is only marginal or if the mass straddles the deuterium limit. The formation interpretation should be framed with the appropriate statistical weight given the marginal metallicity significance.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Introduction or methods] The mass uncertainty M_b = 15 ± 5 M_J is stated without reference to the specific evolutionary models or age assumptions used; add a brief table or citation for the mass derivation.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the NIRCam images should explicitly note the wavelength coverage and any applied filters or coronagraph settings for reproducibility.
  3. [Abstract] A few minor typographical inconsistencies in the abstract (e.g., '29 Cygni (=HIP 99770)') should be standardized with the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and agree that several clarifications and additions will improve the manuscript. We plan to revise the abstract, modeling section, and discussion accordingly while preserving the core scientific interpretation supported by the data.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and results on metallicity] Abstract and results section on metallicity: The central claim that the CO2/CO absorption ratio provides 'strong evidence' for Z_b/Z_star = 3 ± 2 is not supported by the quoted uncertainty, which spans 1-5 and includes solar metallicity (Z=1) at ~1σ. The manuscript must show explicit model fits, chi-squared values, or posterior distributions demonstrating that Z=1 is excluded at higher confidence, including systematic uncertainties from data reduction, atmospheric models, and the empirical comparison sample.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the ±2 uncertainty on Z_b/Z_star = 3 places solar metallicity within approximately 1σ, and that the phrasing 'strong evidence' in the abstract may overstate the statistical significance of the enrichment. The central value and the empirical CO2/CO ratio comparison to literature data still indicate a preference for super-solar metallicity, consistent with the Chachan et al. (2025) trend. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit model fits to the 4-5 μm photometry, including chi-squared values and posterior distributions from our atmospheric retrievals. These will incorporate systematic uncertainties from data reduction (e.g., coronagraphic PSF subtraction residuals), model assumptions, and the empirical sample. This addition will allow readers to assess the exclusion of Z=1 directly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Atmospheric modeling section] Section on atmospheric modeling and empirical comparisons: The translation of the observed CO2 (4.3 μm) to CO (4.6 μm) ratio into a metallicity factor of 3 ± 2 relies on details of the atmospheric models and literature datasets that are not fully specified. A quantitative assessment of how model assumptions (e.g., temperature structure, cloud properties) affect the inferred Z_b/Z_star is required to establish that the result is not sensitive to these choices.

    Authors: We agree that the current modeling section would benefit from greater transparency. The metallicity inference combines the observed CO2/CO band ratio with both empirical scaling from field brown dwarfs and self-consistent atmospheric models. In the revision we will expand this section with a quantitative sensitivity analysis: we will rerun the models while varying the temperature-pressure profile (e.g., radiative-convective vs. parameterized gradients) and cloud properties (clear vs. cloudy with varying optical depth and particle size). We will report the resulting range in Z_b/Z_star and demonstrate that the central value remains between 2 and 4 under these variations, within the quoted uncertainty. Full specifications of the literature comparison sample (wavelength coverage, spectral resolution, and objects used) will also be added. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion section] Discussion of formation implications: The 2σ spin-orbit alignment and mass ratio are presented as supporting disk formation, but no sensitivity analysis shows how the conclusion changes if the alignment is only marginal or if the mass straddles the deuterium limit. The formation interpretation should be framed with the appropriate statistical weight given the marginal metallicity significance.

    Authors: The 2σ alignment (Δi = 12 ± 6°) and the mass straddling the deuterium-burning limit are indeed marginal when considered in isolation. We will add a dedicated sensitivity paragraph in the revised discussion that explores how the formation interpretation shifts under alternative assumptions (e.g., treating the alignment as consistent with random orientation or placing the mass firmly below or above the deuterium limit). The conclusion will be rephrased to emphasize that the ensemble of metallicity, low mass ratio, and alignment is only suggestive of disk formation with rapid metal-rich accretion, rather than definitive. This framing will explicitly note the statistical limitations of each indicator while highlighting their mutual consistency with the revised mass-metallicity relation from transiting planets. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper derives the key metallicity ratio Z_b/Z_star=3±2 directly from measured CO2 (4.3 μm) and CO (4.6 μm) absorption strengths in JWST/NIRCam coronagraphic images, via empirical comparison to literature data and standard atmospheric modeling. This is an observational inference resting on external data and models rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted input renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. The spin-orbit alignment measurement from CHARA/PAVO interferometry is independent. The formation interpretation is presented only as suggestive based on the measured value (which includes solar metallicity within uncertainty), with the Chachan et al. 2025 citation used solely for post-hoc agreement and not to justify uniqueness or an ansatz. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks with no reduction to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The metallicity ratio and formation inference rest on atmospheric models and empirical templates whose parameters are not enumerated here; mass estimate carries ±5 M_J uncertainty treated as input.

free parameters (2)
  • Z_b/Z_star ratio
    Derived value of 3±2 from CO2/CO strength comparison; treated as fitted output but depends on model assumptions.
  • Companion mass
    M_b ≃ 15±5 M_J stated as uncertain input straddling deuterium limit.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Atmospheric models accurately map CO2/CO absorption ratios to bulk metallicity without major degeneracies in temperature, gravity, or clouds.
    Invoked to convert observed feature strengths to Z_b/Z_star=3±2.
  • domain assumption Spin-orbit alignment at 2σ supports disk formation over fragmentation.
    Used to favor protoplanetary disk scenario.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5769 in / 1475 out tokens · 44918 ms · 2026-05-10T16:30:01.900050+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

163 extracted references · 151 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Ackerman, M.S

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

    work page doi:10.1086/321540 2001

  2. [2]

    F., Spiegelman, F., & Kielkopf, J

    Allard, N. F., Spiegelman, F., & Kielkopf, J. F. 2016, A&A, 589, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628270 29 Cyg b JWST Coronagraphy15

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628270 2016

  3. [3]

    F., Spiegelman, F., Leininger, T., & Molliere, P

    Allard, N. F., Spiegelman, F., Leininger, T., & Molli` ere, P. 2019, A&A, 628, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935593 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 A...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935593 2019

  4. [4]

    Naumenko, O. V. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 4063, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1133

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1133 2016

  5. [5]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/15

    Bae, J., Hartmann, L., & Zhu, Z. 2015, ApJ, 805, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/15

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/15 2015

  6. [6]

    O., Pueyo, L., Stolker, T., et al

    Balmer, W. O., Pueyo, L., Stolker, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf761

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf761 2023

  7. [7]

    O., Pueyo, L., Lacour, S., et al

    Balmer, W. O., Pueyo, L., Lacour, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1689

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad1689 2024

  8. [8]

    The Astronomical Journal169(1), 30 (2025)

    Balmer, W. O., Franson, K., Chomez, A., et al. 2025a, AJ, 169, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9265

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad9265

  9. [9]

    and Kammerer, Jens and Pueyo, Laurent and Perrin, Marshall D

    Balmer, W. O., Kammerer, J., Pueyo, L., et al. 2025b, AJ, 169, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb1c6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adb1c6

  10. [10]

    ” Rothman et al. (2010) Polyansky et al. (2018) “

    Barber, R. J., Strange, J. K., Hill, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2011 Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. C., Balmer, W. O., Pueyo, L., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade30f

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2011 2014

  11. [11]

    J., Yurchenko, S

    Barton, E. J., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1469, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1105

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1105 2013

  12. [12]

    1984, A&A, 131, 378

    Baschek, B., Koeppen, J., Scholz, M., et al. 1984, A&A, 131, 378

    1984

  13. [13]

    1969, ApJ, 155, 537, doi: 10.1086/149890

    Baschek, B., & Searle, L. 1969, ApJ, 155, 537, doi: 10.1086/149890

    work page doi:10.1086/149890 1969

  14. [14]

    Bate, M. R. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 590, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14106.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14106.x 2009

  15. [15]

    A., Cushing, M

    Beiler, S. A., Cushing, M. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 973, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6301

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6301

  16. [16]

    A., Mukherjee, S., Cushing, M

    Beiler, S. A., Mukherjee, S., Cushing, M. C., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 973, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6759

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6759

  17. [17]

    A., Booth, R

    Bergin, E. A., Booth, R. A., Colmenares, M. J., & Ilee, J. D. 2024, ApJL, 969, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5839

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5839 2024

  18. [18]

    2025, Nature, 644, 356, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09324-0

    Wu, Y.-L. 2025, Nature, 644, 356, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09324-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09324-0 2025

  19. [19]

    O., Wang, J

    Blunt, S., Balmer, W. O., Wang, J. J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad06b7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad06b7 2023

  20. [20]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 5588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1250

    Bonavita, M., Fontanive, C., Gratton, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1250

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1250 2022

  21. [21]

    1989, ApJ, 336, 495, doi: 10.1086/167027

    Borysow, A., Frommhold, L., & Moraldi, M. 1989, ApJ, 336, 495, doi: 10.1086/167027

    work page doi:10.1086/167027 1989

  22. [22]

    G., & Fu, Y

    Borysow, A., Jorgensen, U. G., & Fu, Y. 2001, JQSRT, 68, 235, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4073(00)00023-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-4073(00)00023-6 2001

  23. [23]

    1988, ApJ, 326, 509, doi: 10.1086/166112

    Borysow, J., Frommhold, L., & Birnbaum, G. 1988, ApJ, 326, 509, doi: 10.1086/166112

    work page doi:10.1086/166112 1988

  24. [24]

    Boss, A. P. 2023, ApJ, 943, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf63

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaf63 2023

  25. [25]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.02665

    Bovie, D., Currie, T., El Morsy, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.02665. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.02665

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    P., Blunt, S

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5b11 2020

  27. [27]

    P., Tran, Q

    Bowler, B. P., Tran, Q. H., Zhang, Z., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acbd34

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acbd34 2023

  28. [28]

    Brandt, T. D. 2021, ApJS, 254, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c 2021

  29. [29]

    D., McElwain, M

    Brandt, T. D., McElwain, M. W., Turner, E. L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/159

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/159 2014

  30. [30]

    2014, X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue, A&A, 564, A125, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

  31. [31]

    M., & Burbidge, G

    Burbidge, E. M., & Burbidge, G. R. 1956, ApJ, 124, 116, doi: 10.1086/146208

    work page doi:10.1086/146208 1956

  32. [32]

    2024, in Handbook of Exoplanets, 143–2, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30648-3 143-2

    Burn, R., & Mordasini, C. 2024, in Handbook of Exoplanets, 143–2, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30648-3 143-2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30648-3 2024

  33. [33]

    2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.12.1, Zenodo Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6984365

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.12.1, Zenodo Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6984365

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6984365 2023

  34. [34]

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

    Carter, A. L., Hinkley, S., Kammerer, J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd93e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd93e 2023

  35. [35]

    and Ohno, Kazumasa and Thorngren, Daniel and Murray-Clay, Ruth , month = sep, year =

    Murray-Clay, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.20428, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.20428

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.20428 2025

  36. [36]

    A., Lothringer, J., & Blake, G

    Chachan, Y., Knutson, H. A., Lothringer, J., & Blake, G. A. 2023, ApJ, 943, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca614

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca614 2023

  37. [37]

    M., & Dalgarno, A

    Chan, Y. M., & Dalgarno, A. 1965, Proceedings of the Physical Society, 85, 227, doi: 10.1088/0370-1328/85/2/304

    work page doi:10.1088/0370-1328/85/2/304 1965

  38. [38]

    and Rocchetto, Marco and Yurchenko, Sergei N

    Chubb, K. L., Rocchetto, M., Yurchenko, S. N., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038350

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038350 2021

  39. [39]

    A., Yurchenko, S

    Coles, P. A., , Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4638, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2778

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2778 2019

  40. [40]

    M., Brandt, T

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abo6192 2023

  41. [41]

    Dalgarno, A., & Williams, D. A. 1962, ApJ, 136, 690, doi: 10.1086/147428 Do ´O, C. R., O’Neil, K. K., Konopacky, Q. M., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdc9a

    work page doi:10.1086/147428 1962

  42. [42]

    Ducati, J. R. 2002, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2237, 0 16W. O. Balmer et al

    2002

  43. [43]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , author =

    Emsenhuber, A., Mordasini, C., Burn, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038553 Espinosa Lara, F., & Rieutord, M. 2011, A&A, 533, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117252

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038553 2021

  44. [44]

    1999, ApJ, 520, 215, doi: 10.1086/307458

    Thakur, N. 1999, ApJ, 520, 215, doi: 10.1086/307458

    work page doi:10.1086/307458 1999

  45. [45]

    The Astrophysical Journal (under review) , author =

    Feinstein, A. D., Booth, R. A., Bergner, J. B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.00669, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.00669

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.00669 2025

  46. [46]

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x 2008

  47. [47]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x 2009

  48. [48]

    Feroz, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., Cameron, E., & Pettitt, A. N. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 10, doi: 10.21105/astro.1306.2144

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.1306.2144 2019

  49. [49]

    Follette, K. B. 2023, PASP, 135, 093001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aceb31

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aceb31 2023

  50. [50]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society474(4), 5036–5048 (2018)

    Forgan, D. H., Hall, C., Meru, F., & Rice, W. K. M. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2870

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2870 2018

  51. [51]

    , keywords =

    Franson, K., Bowler, B. P., Zhou, Y., et al. 2023, ApJL, 950, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd6f6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd6f6 2023

  52. [52]

    O., Bowler, B

    Franson, K., Balmer, W. O., Bowler, B. P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad736a Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00211, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2208.00211

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad736a 2024

  53. [53]

    W., Gilbert, G

    Giacalone, S., Howard, A. W., Gilbert, G. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11818, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11818

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.11818 2025

  54. [54]

    R., & Percy, J

    Gies, D. R., & Percy, J. R. 1977, AJ, 82, 166, doi: 10.1086/112023

    work page doi:10.1086/112023 1977

  55. [55]

    J., Van Zandt, J., Petigura, E

    Gilbert, G. J., Van Zandt, J., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.12816, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.12816

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.12816 2025

  56. [56]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 2019

  57. [57]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2500

    Ginzburg, S., & Chiang, E. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2500

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2500 2020

  58. [58]

    H., Leisenring, J., Kammerer, J., et al

    Girard, J. H., Leisenring, J., Kammerer, J., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 121803Q, doi: 10.1117/12.2629636

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2629636 2022

  59. [59]

    2021, AJ, 162, 304, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac174e

    Golomb, J., Rocha, G., Meshkat, T., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 304, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac174e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac174e 2021

  60. [60]

    Z., Llop-Sayson, J., Lew, B

    Greenbaum, A. Z., Llop-Sayson, J., Lew, B. W. P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb68b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb68b 2023

  61. [61]

    C., Pont, F., et al

    Guillot, T., Santos, N. C., Pont, F., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065476

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065476 2006

  62. [62]

    Harris, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  63. [63]

    1997, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2215, 0

    Hauck, B., & Mermilliod, M. 1997, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2215, 0

    1997

  64. [64]

    1998, A&A, 335, 1009

    Gelbmann, M. 1998, A&A, 335, 1009

    1998

  65. [65]

    2010, Icarus, 207, 503, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.11.023

    Helled, R., & Bodenheimer, P. 2010, Icarus, 207, 503, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.11.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.11.023 2010

  66. [66]

    1996, A&A, 311, 291

    Henning, T., & Stognienko, R. 1996, A&A, 311, 291

    1996

  67. [67]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.07199, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.07199

    Hinkley, S., Biller, B., Skemer, A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.07199, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.07199

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.07199 2023

  68. [68]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  69. [69]

    J., M´ erand, A., ten Brummelaar, T

    Ireland, M. J., M´ erand, A., ten Brummelaar, T. A., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7013, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 24, doi: 10.1117/12.788386

    work page doi:10.1117/12.788386 2008

  70. [70]

    J., Dorschner, J., et al

    Jaeger, C., Molster, F. J., Dorschner, J., et al. 1998, A&A, 339, 904

    1998

  71. [71]

    J., Quinn, S., et al

    Jones, J., White, R. J., Quinn, S., et al. 2016, ApJL, 822, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/l3 2016

  72. [72]

    J., Boyajian, T., et al

    Jones, J., White, R. J., Boyajian, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/58

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/1/58 2015

  73. [73]

    2021, A&A, 652, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140749

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140749 2021

  74. [74]

    L., et al

    Kammerer, J., Girard, J., Carter, A. L., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 121803N, doi: 10.1117/12.2628865

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2628865 2022

  75. [75]

    K., Paunzen, E., et al

    Kamp, I., Iliev, I. K., Paunzen, E., et al. 2001, A&A, 375, 899, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010886

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010886 2001

  76. [76]

    J., et al

    Karalidi, T., Marley, M., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 269, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3140

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3140 2021

  77. [77]

    2006, ApJ, 639, 432, doi: 10.1086/498928

    Klahr, H., & Bodenheimer, P. 2006, ApJ, 639, 432, doi: 10.1086/498928

    work page doi:10.1086/498928 2006

  78. [78]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 271, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307 Kunovac Hodžić, V., Triaud, A

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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307 2016

  79. [79]

    M., Murray-Clay, R

    Kratter, K. M., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Youdin, A. N. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1375, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1375 29 Cyg b JWST Coronagraphy17

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1375 2010

  80. [80]

    E., Balasubramanian, K., Beichman, C

    Krist, J. E., Balasubramanian, K., Beichman, C. A., et al. 2009, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7440, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets IV, ed. S. B. Shaklan, 74400W, doi: 10.1117/12.826448

    work page doi:10.1117/12.826448 2009

Showing first 80 references.