Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

A Tentative Detection of a Point Source in the Disk Gap of HD 100546 with VLT/SPHERE-IRDIS Sparse Aperture Masking Interferometry

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a compact point source candidate inside the ~13 au gap of HD 100546's disk moved between 2018 and 2021, and that a disk-plus-point-source model is decisively preferred over disk-only models.

desk verdict A tentative, well-hedged point-source detection in the HD 100546 gap with two-epoch motion; the main caveat is a limited disk-model comparison that the authors themselves acknowledge. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07759 v1 pith:ITJ7SNII submitted 2025-02-11 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Dori Blakely , Doug Johnstone , Tomas Stolker , Myriam Benisty , Jens Kammerer , Brodie J. Norfolk , William Thompson , Jean-Philippe Berger This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords HD100546transitiondisksparseaperturemaskinginterferometryclosurephasesprotoplanetcandidategaporbitalmotionforwardscattering
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 re-analyzes archival VLT/SPHERE-IRDIS sparse aperture masking data of the transition disk HD 100546 and argues that the closure phases are best explained by forward scattering off the disk edge plus an unresolved point source located inside the ~13 au disk gap. The source appears to move between the 2018 and 2021 epochs, from a separation of ~40 mas to ~50 mas while its position angle changes by ~18 degrees, which favors a companion interpretation. If the detection is real, the object is a ~25-50 Jupiter-mass companion at ~4-5 au. The authors caution that the signal could instead come from a bright asymmetric structure in the inner disk, and they argue follow-up observations are needed to settle its nature.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the polar Gaussian ring model, a geometrical description of the forward-scattered light from the disk's inner edge, whose peak sits on the near-side minor axis, plus an unresolved point-source component. The paper fits this model to closure phases (phase sums around baseline triangles) using nested sampling and compares models by Bayesian evidence. The key lever is the closure-phase signal, which is sensitive to asymmetric emission; the contrast-separation degeneracy prevents the data from distinguishing a faint, more-separated source from a brighter, more-central source, which is the main limiting ambiguity.

What would settle it

A third epoch of SPHERE SAM data that shows the candidate continuing along a Keplerian arc would strengthen the companion case, while a VLTI/GRAVITY observation resolving a bright asymmetric inner-disk structure within ~9 mas that reproduces the closure phases would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a point source plus forward-scattering disk model is the best representation of the closure phases, and that the point source moves between the two epochs. The Bayesian evidence for the disk-plus-point-source model exceeds the disk-only model by a log-Bayes factor of 378.4 and the two-disk model by 285.9. The inferred position shifts from separation $39.9^{+2.8}_{-3.3}$ mas at PA $124.1^{+1.0}_{-1.0}$ degrees in 2018 to separation $50.0^{+1.0}_{-1.1}$ mas at PA $106.4^{+1.4}_{-1.4}$ degrees in 2021, placing it well within the ~120 mas disk gap. The authors interpret this as tentative evidence for a ~25-50 $M_J$ companion on either a high-eccentricity orbit near the disk plane or a large-inclination orbit, while acknowledging that an unresolved inner-disk asymmetry could produce the same signal.

Load-bearing premise

The point-source interpretation depends on the assumption that the disk's scattered light is fully captured by a single polar Gaussian ring whose geometry is fixed between epochs; if a bright compact asymmetry sits within about 9 mas of the star, it could produce the same closure phases, and the paper explicitly does not rule this out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the point source is real, it is a ~25-50 Jupiter-mass companion orbiting inside the disk gap of HD 100546, a rare direct probe of planet formation in progress.
  • The measured motion over three years constrains the orbit: either the companion moves on a high-eccentricity orbit roughly aligned with the outer disk, or on a highly inclined orbit with any eccentricity.
  • The detection demonstrates that forward-scattering disk emission can mimic or obscure point-source signals in sparse aperture masking data, so companion searches around transition disks must model the disk.
  • Follow-up SAM or VLTI/GRAVITY observations can distinguish a companion from an inner-disk asymmetry, as the paper explicitly recommends.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the companion interpretation holds, the high-eccentricity orbital family would bring the object close to the inner disk at periastron, potentially explaining some of the disk asymmetries and the CO Doppler flip reported for HD 100546.
  • The same modeling approach could be applied to other transition disks with archival SAM data, where unresolved inner-disk asymmetries may be a common source of false-positive companion detections.
  • A decisive test could come from combining the two epochs with a third epoch: the object's acceleration sign would immediately discriminate bound orbital motion from a static or slowly evolving disk feature.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper re-analyzes archival VLT/SPHERE-IRDIS sparse aperture masking (SAM) data of the transition disk HD 100546 from 2018 (K band) and 2021 (H band). The authors fit three geometric models to the closure phases: a single polar Gaussian ring (PG), a PG plus an unresolved point source (PG+PS), and two polar Gaussian rings (2PG). Using nested sampling, they find that PG+PS is strongly preferred, with a log-Bayes factor of 378.4 over PG and 285.9 over 2PG. The point source candidate is reported at separations of 39.9 mas (P.A. 124.1°) in 2018 and 50.0 mas (P.A. 106.4°) in 2021, implying a ~10 mas and ~18° apparent motion. The authors present residual chi-squared maps, estimate a companion mass of roughly 25-50 M_J, and explore the orbital parameter space with Octofitter. They explicitly caution that a bright inner-disk asymmetry at <9 mas cannot be ruled out due to the contrast-separation degeneracy, and they recommend follow-up observations.

Significance. If confirmed, the candidate would be a substellar or low-mass companion inside the ~13 au gap of HD 100546, with astrometric motion that could help explain the disk's many observed asymmetries. The methodological core—Bayesian model comparison of geometric disk models on closure phases—is a natural extension of the authors' earlier work on LkCa 15 and PDS 70, and is applied here to a high-profile target with previously contradictory SAM results. The analysis is careful and transparent: the two extended models (PG+PS and 2PG) have equal free-parameter counts, the evidence computation uses nested sampling, and the paper includes a residual-mapping step and extensive discussion of degeneracies. The authors are appropriately honest in labeling the detection as tentative and in identifying the inner-disk-asymmetry scenario as an unexcluded alternative. The paper provides a falsifiable prediction—continued orbital motion in future SAM or GRAVITY observations—if the point-source interpretation is correct.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 and Table 1] The 2PG model forces the second polar Gaussian to share the same radius r0 and radial FWHM FWHMr as the main forward-scattering ring, so it cannot represent a compact or radially displaced disk asymmetry. The large log-Bayes factor between PG+PS and 2PG (285.9, Section 4.3) therefore demonstrates only that a point source is preferred over the specific 2PG implementation, not that the residual is point-like rather than an extended feature at a different radius. I request an additional model that allows a second ring at an independent radius (and ideally independent radial width), or a compact Gaussian disk blob with free radius, and a rerun of the model comparison to test whether the point-source preference survives.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Figure 3] The residual chi-squared maps and the reported >8σ (2018) and 5.04σ (2021) significances are computed by fitting a point-source binary model to the residuals of the PG fit; this assumes the residual is point-like and thus does not independently test whether a compact extended source could produce the same closure phases. The paper itself concedes in Section 4.3 that a bright asymmetry at separations <9 mas cannot be excluded because of the contrast-separation degeneracy, and the degeneracy plateau is visible in the 2018 map. As a result, the point-source separations and P.A.s in Table 2, and the astrometric motion derived from them, are conditional on the PG+PS model being correct. Please either include a non-point-like residual test or state this conditionality prominently in Section 4.4 and in the abstract.
  3. [Section 3] The main disk geometry (r0, i, P.A., FWHMr, FWHMθ) is fixed between the 2018 and 2021 epochs, with only the ring brightness allowed to vary. If the disk's scattering pattern evolves slightly between epochs (e.g., due to variable illumination or a rotating inner disk), the fixed-geometry assumption could force residual variability into the point-source component, artificially producing the apparent ~10 mas separation change. Please justify this assumption on physical grounds, or test it by allowing at least r0 or P.A. to vary per epoch in a supplementary fit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The phrase 'A T entative' in the header appears to contain a spacing artifact; please check the LaTeX source.
  2. [Table 3] The orbital element θ1 is used but not defined in the text or the table notes; please define it as the position angle at the reference epoch.
  3. [Section 4.2] The significance calculation is said to use Equation 4 from Stolker et al. (2024), but the equation is not reproduced; either include it or provide a self-contained description.
  4. [Figure 2] The caption refers to 'rows' and 'columns' but does not specify which columns correspond to which filter; please label the columns or describe the layout explicitly.
  5. [Section 4.4] The mass estimate is presented as a range from 25 to 50 M_J, but the systematic uncertainty in the contrast due to the contrast-separation degeneracy is acknowledged only qualitatively; consider quoting the mass range as explicitly model-dependent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis is an empirical model comparison of fitted geometric models; the point-source detection, astrometry, and orbit estimates are fitted results with explicit caveats, not predictions that reduce to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: calibrated closure phases are fit with geometric models (PG, PG+PS, 2PG) via nested sampling; the models are compared by Bayesian evidence; the preferred PG+PS model yields point-source positions and contrasts at two epochs; those fitted values are then used with external atmosphere/evolution models and a stellar parallax to estimate mass and explore orbits. No step is circular by the paper's own equations. The PG+PS model is not defined in terms of the measured separation or position angle; it is a generic polar Gaussian ring plus unresolved point source fitted to the data, and the reported astrometry is the fitted result, not a prediction of withheld data. The 2PG alternative shares r0 and FWHMr with the main ring, which limits its radial flexibility, but that is a model-robustness concern rather than circularity: the paper explicitly acknowledges the contrast/separation degeneracy and states in Section 4.3 that a bright inner-disk asymmetry at <9 mas cannot be ruled out. These caveats are the opposite of circularity because they concede that the point-source interpretation is not uniquely forced by the data. The self-citations (Blakely et al. 2022 methodology; Blakely et al. 2024 application) are methodological rather than load-bearing: the polar Gaussian model is stated explicitly in Equation 1, and the cited prior works do not supply the detection claim. The mass and orbit estimates are derived after the fit using external evolutionary models and parallax, and the paper labels them as estimates contingent on the measured contrasts and astrometry. Thus there is no 'prediction' that reduces by construction to a fitted input, and no self-citation chain that forces the central result.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central detection rests on a small set of fitted model parameters (the polar Gaussian ring plus point source position and contrast). No new physical constants are introduced. The candidate companion is a hypothesized entity rather than a confirmed object, and a bright inner-disk asymmetry at sub-9 mas separation remains an alternative explanation.

free parameters (14)
  • Polar Gaussian ring peak amplitude per filter (log I0) = -4.495 (H2), -4.500 (H3), -4.478 (K1), -4.453 (K2) (arbitrary units)
    Fitted brightness of the forward-scattering ring in each band; central to the disk model.
  • Ring radius r0 = 0.093 mas (PG+PS model)
    Fitted radius of the polar Gaussian ring, tightly constrained by closure phases.
  • Disk inclination i = 45.1 degrees (PG+PS model)
    Fitted inclination of the disk model; affects the projected ring shape.
  • Disk position angle P.A. = 327.9 degrees (PG+PS model)
    Fitted position angle, with a Gaussian prior from literature (mean 323, std 5 degrees).
  • Ring radial FWHM = 0.105 mas (PG+PS model)
    Fitted radial thickness of the ring model.
  • Ring azimuthal FWHM = 101.6 degrees (PG+PS model)
    Fitted azimuthal width, which controls the forward-scattering concentration.
  • Point source log10 contrast per filter = -2.56 (K1), -2.57 (K2), -2.88 (H2), -2.90 (H3)
    Fitted companion-to-star contrast in each filter; central to the point source detection.
  • Point source separation per epoch = 39.9 mas (2018), 50.0 mas (2021)
    Fitted separations; the change between epochs is the key astrometric signal.
  • Point source position angle per epoch = 124.1 degrees (2018), 106.4 degrees (2021)
    Fitted position angles; the ~18 degree change is the key astrometric signal.
  • Second ring amplitude per filter (log I1, 2PG model) = -5.23 (H2), -5.34 (H3), -4.95 (K1), -5.01 (K2)
    Fitted brightness of the optional second disk asymmetry component in the 2PG model comparison.
  • Second ring azimuthal peak position per epoch (theta1, 2PG model) = 35 degrees (2018), 73 degrees (2021)
    Fitted location of the second disk asymmetry in the 2PG model.
  • Second ring azimuthal FWHM per epoch (2PG model) = 96 degrees (2018), 48 degrees (2021)
    Fitted azimuthal width of the second disk asymmetry in the 2PG model.
  • Assumed age of HD 100546 = 5 Myr
    Adopted age used to convert measured contrasts to mass estimates via atmosphere/evolution models; not fitted to the data.
  • Stellar mass prior = N(2.25, 0.25) solar masses
    Gaussian prior on stellar mass used in the orbital fit; chosen broadly due to literature discrepancies.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Closure phases are related to the sky brightness via Fourier transform, and model closure phases are computed by Equation 2 with Gaussian uncertainties.
    The entire likelihood in Eq. (2) relies on the standard interferometric relation between visibilities and closure phases.
  • domain assumption The forward-scattered light from the near side of the disk edge is well approximated by a polar Gaussian ring whose peak is fixed to the disk minor axis (Eq. 1).
    Stated in Section 3 as the adopted disk model following Blakely et al. (2022); the quality of the point source detection depends on this approximation.
  • domain assumption The disk geometry (radius, inclination, position angle, widths) is the same in 2018 and 2021; only brightness varies between filters.
    Joint fit fixes the main ring geometry across epochs (Section 3); if the disk structure changed, point source parameters could absorb the difference.
  • domain assumption The inner disk is unresolved and does not contribute significantly at the fitted point source separations.
    The authors deliberately do not include an inner disk component, noting GRAVITY found a semi-major axis of ~2.6 mas (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Calibration with the listed calibrator stars removes instrumental closure phase systematics, so the reported uncertainties sigma_i are accurate.
    The reliability of the Bayes factors and significance claims depends on these uncertainties being well calibrated, which is not independently verified.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian prior on disk position angle (mean 323 deg, std 5 deg) from literature is appropriate.
    Used in all fits (Section 3); a biased prior could shift the disk model and influence the point source residual.
  • domain assumption The prior on companion contrast excludes values above 10^-1 to respect VLTI non-detections.
    The contrast prior in Table 2 is uniformly bounded to [-4, -1] based on previous VLTI observations; this shapes the allowed point source parameter space.
invented entities (1)
  • Point-source companion candidate inside the disk gap of HD 100546
    purpose: Explains residual closure phases as a compact source at 40 to 50 mas that moves between 2018 and 2021.
    The candidate is an interpretation of the same data used for detection; no external confirmation exists, and the authors explicitly call the detection tentative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Tentative Detection of a Point Source in the Disk Gap of HD 100546 with VLT/SPHERE-IRDIS Sparse Aperture Masking Interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ITJ7SNII

@misc{pith2026250207759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Tentative Detection of a Point Source in the Disk Gap of HD 100546 with VLT/SPHERE-IRDIS Sparse Aperture Masking Interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ITJ7SNII}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07759}
}
abstract

We re-analyze VLT/SPHERE-IRDIS K and H-band sparse aperture masking interferometry data of the transition disk HD 100546 observed in 2018 and 2021, respectively. We fit geometrical models to the closure phases extracted from both datasets. We compare three model classes: a forward scattering disk, a forward scattering disk plus an arbitrary asymmetric disk feature and a forward scattering disk plus an unresolved point source in the disk-gap. We find that the forward scattering disk plus point source model is the best representation of the data. We find that this point source candidate moved from a position of sep. = $39.9^{+2.8}_{-3.3}$ mas, P.A. = $124.1^{+1.0}_{-1.0}$ degrees to a sep. = $50.0^{+1.0}_{-1.0}$ mas, P.A. = $106.4^{+1.4}_{-1.4}$ degrees between 2018 and 2021. Both of these positions are well within the $\sim$13 au ($\sim$120 mas) disk-gap, favouring the point source interpretation. We explore the orbital parameter space that is consistent with the measured relative astrometry. We find orbits either with a similar orientation to the outer disk, with a high eccentricity $e \gtrapprox 0.65$, or orbits with a large relative inclination ($\sim$60 degrees) to the outer disk, and any eccentricity. Despite the significance of the observed point-source signal, follow-up observations will be necessary to conclusively determine its nature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07759 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Calibrated closure phases for HD 100546, extracted from the 2018 2.1 µm (teal) and 2.3 µm data (blue) and 2021 1.6 µm (maroon) and 1.7 µm data (purple). central star and a point source companion significantly contribute to the observed measurement, ignoring any disk contribution. Thus, despite recovering a high sig￾nificance signal, the majority of what is seen is likely due to contamination from the inner edge of t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Median geometrical models from the PG (left), PG+PS (middle) and 2PG (right) joint fits to the closure phase data, calculated using the median parameters displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reduced chi-squared (χ 2 r) maps, calculated by fitting a point source (binary) model to the residuals of the PG model fit, at each location (with a step size of 1 mas) within a radius of 125 mas. The significance of the 2018 detection is a >8σ result and the 2021 detection is a 5σ result, using the method by Gallenne et al. (2015). The 3σ credible interval contours on the location of the point source at each epoch … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Closure phase data (using the same colours as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The white contours show the median model disk component of the PG+PS model plotted on top of a Ks-band total intensity image of HD 100546 from Ren et al. (2023) (left) and ALMA band 6 data of HD 100546 from Norfolk et al. (2022) (right). The images are shown on a linea…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Orbital analysis corner plot, showing only the stellar mass, semi-major axis, eccentricity and inclination distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plot from the joint fit of the PG+PS model, with the disk geometry fixed between epochs, and the companion location allowed to vary. A. PG+PS POSTERIOR DISTRIBUTION [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2019, AJ, 157, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0ca1 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Arun, R., Mathew, B., Manoj, P., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0ca1 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 11 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab0ca1 2019

  2. [2]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.09991, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09991

    Benisty, M., Dominik, C., Follette, K., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.09991, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09991

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09991 2022

  3. [3]

    L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al

    Beuzit, J. L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935251

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935251 2019

  4. [4]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6586

    Blakely, D., Francis, L., Johnstone, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6586

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6586 2022

  5. [5]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.13032, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.13032

    Blakely, D., Johnstone, D., Cugno, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.13032, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.13032

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.13032 2024

  6. [6]

    M., et al

    Boccaletti, A., Pantin, E., Lagrange, A. M., et al. 2013, A&A, 560, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322365

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322365 2013

  7. [7]

    J., Benisty, M., Perraut, K., et al

    Bohn, A. J., Benisty, M., Perraut, K., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142070

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142070 2022

  8. [8]

    S., Ilee, J

    Booth, A. S., Ilee, J. D., Walsh, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244472

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244472 2023

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.3.13

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.3.13. http://github.com/google/jax

    2018

  2. [10]

    D., Najita, J

    Brittain, S. D., Najita, J. R., & Carr, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 883, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab380b

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, ApJL, 933, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac75e8

    Casassus, S., C´ arcamo, M., Hales, A., Weber, P., & Dent, B. 2022, ApJL, 933, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac75e8

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2019, ApJL, 883, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4425

    Casassus, S., & P´ erez, S. 2019, ApJL, 883, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4425

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Girard, J., Lacour, S., et al

    Cheetham, A. C., Girard, J., Lacour, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9907, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging V, ed. F. Malbet, M. J. Creech-Eakman, & P. G. Tuthill, 99072T, doi: 10.1117/12.2231983

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Lacour, S., Schreiber, M

    Cieza, L. A., Lacour, S., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2013, ApJL, 762, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/762/1/L12

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    2015, ApJL, 814, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/814/2/L27

    Currie, T., Cloutier, R., Brittain, S., et al. 2015, ApJL, 814, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/814/2/L27

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    2014, ApJL, 796, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/796/2/L30

    Currie, T., Muto, T., Kudo, T., et al. 2014, ApJL, 796, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/796/2/L30

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

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

    Dohlen, K., Langlois, M., Saisse, M., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 70143L, doi: 10.1117/12.789786

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, A&A, 651, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141278

    Fedele, D., Toci, C., Maud, L., & Lodato, G. 2021, A&A, 651, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141278

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    B., Rameau, J., Dong, R., et al

    Follette, K. B., Rameau, J., Dong, R., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 264, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6d85

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    2015, A&A, 579, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525917

    Gallenne, A., M´ erand, A., Kervella, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525917

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    P., Schmid, H

    Garufi, A., Quanz, S. P., Schmid, H. M., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527940

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Millman, 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

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2018, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891–913, doi: 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    Higson, E., Handley, W., Hobson, M., & Lasenby, A. 2018, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891–913, doi: 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

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

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadae4

    Jamialahmadi, N., Ratzka, T., Pani´ c, O., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadae4

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    R., & Peacock, J

    Jenkins, C. R., & Peacock, J. A. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 2895–2905, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18361.x

    2011

  20. [28]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    1995

  21. [29]

    S., et al

    Keyte, L., Kama, M., Booth, A. S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 684, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01951-9

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.0, v2.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7600689

    Koposov, S., Speagle, J., Barbary, K., et al. 2023, joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.0, v2.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7600689

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2011, The Messenger, 146, 18

    Lacour, S., Tuthill, P., Ireland, M., Amico, P., & Girard, J. 2011, The Messenger, 146, 18

    2011

  24. [32]

    P., Kluska, J., et al

    Lazareff, B., Berger, J. P., Kluska, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629305

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Pani´ c, O., Haworth, T

    Miley, J. M., Pani´ c, O., Haworth, T. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz426

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Maddison, S

    Norfolk, B. J., Maddison, S. T., Pinte, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab313

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Pinte, C., Calcino, J., et al

    Norfolk, B. J., Pinte, C., Calcino, J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 936, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ed Pani´ c, O., Ratzka, T., Mulders, G. D., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219223 P´ erez, S., Casassus, S., Hales, A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 889, L24, doi: 10.3...

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    W., Tremblin, P., Baraffe, I., et al

    Phillips, M. W., Tremblin, P., Baraffe, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937381

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    E., Szul´ agyi, J., Quanz, S

    Pineda, J. E., Szul´ agyi, J., Quanz, S. P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf389 Pourr´ e, N., Winterhalder, T. O., Le Bouquin, J. B., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A258, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449507

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    P., Amara, A., Meyer, M

    Quanz, S. P., Amara, A., Meyer, M. R., et al. 2013, ApJL, 766, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/766/1/L1 12

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    P., Schmid, H

    Quanz, S. P., Schmid, H. M., Geissler, K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/23

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    B., Benisty, M., Ginski, C., et al

    Ren, B. B., Benisty, M., Ginski, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347353

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace16c

    Sallum, S., Eisner, J., Skemer, A., & Murray-Clay, R. 2023, ApJ, 953, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace16c

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Soulain, A., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Tuthill, P., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11446, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VII, ed. P. G

    2020

  36. [44]

    M´ erand, & S

    Tuthill, A. M´ erand, & S. Sallum, 1144611, doi: 10.1117/12.2560804

    doi

  37. [45]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    P., Todorov, K

    Stolker, T., Quanz, S. P., Todorov, K. O., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937159

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, A&A, 682, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347291

    Stolker, T., Kammerer, J., Benisty, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347291

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, arXiv:2308.09769

    Surjanovic, N., Biron-Lattes, M., Tiede, P., et al. 2023, arXiv:2308.09769

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2022, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 84, 321, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12464

    Syed, S., Bouchard-Cˆ ot´ e, A., Deligiannidis, G., & Doucet, A. 2022, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 84, 321, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12464

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2011, A&A, 531, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016165

    Tatulli, E., Benisty, M., M´ enard, F., et al. 2011, A&A, 531, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016165

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    2023, AJ, 166, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf5cc

    Thompson, W., Lawrence, J., Blakely, D., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf5cc

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tuthill, P., Lacour, S., Amico, P., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77351O, doi: 10.1117/12.856806

    2010 doi

  45. [53]

    2020, vlt-sphere: Automatic VLT/SPHERE data reduction and analysis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.002

    Vigan, A. 2020, vlt-sphere: Automatic VLT/SPHERE data reduction and analysis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.002. http://ascl.net/2009.002

    2020

  46. [54]

    2010, MNRAS, 407, 71, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16916.x

    Vigan, A., Moutou, C., Langlois, M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 71, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16916.x

    2010

  47. [55]

    M., Maddison, S

    Wright, C. M., Maddison, S. T., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 414, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1619

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.