adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: Left panel: the cumulative size–frequency distribution (SFD) as a function of diameter based on the WISE data (Grav et al. 2011) of the L 4 (blue line) and L 5 (orange line) Jupiter Trojan swarms are shown. The dashed black line shows the combined Trojan SFD and the green line the one of the Eurybates family (EF). The WISE data is complete down to about 20 km. Right panel: the cumulative SFD as a function of absolute magnitude, H, according to the data from the Minor Planet Center is shown. An absolute magnitude of 13.5 corresponds roughly to a 10 km Trojan, assuming an average albedo of 0.07 (Grav et al. 2011). The line colors correspond to the same (sub-)populations as in the left panel.
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: The left panel shows the SFDs of the Eurybates family with (i) all members retrieved by the HCM (red solid line and points) and (ii) suspected interloper (5258) Rhoeo removed from the family (blue solid line and points). The latter corresponds to our nominal case of the Eurybates family. The dashed line shows the approximate best power-law fit for the nominal SFD with a slope of 2.1 for objects larger than 19 km and 3.7 below that. The right panel shows a comparison of our nominal SFD with the results from the rubble pile simulation of Benavidez et al. (2012) at an impact speed of 6 km s−1, impact angle of 75°, and mass ratio of target to impactor bodies ﹩\mathrm{log}({M}_{\mathrm{tar}}/{M}_{\mathrm{imp}})=1.4﹩. The diameters and associated errors were taken from the NEOWISE data set v2.0 (Mainzer et al. 2019).
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: The top panel shows the H-magnitude of the Eurybates family as a function of the proper semimajor axis as well as g–i color from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, SDSS (Ivezić et al. 2001). The text labels indicate the Trojan numbers of the eight brightest family members. The middle panel shows the H-magnitude as a function of proper eccentricity and spectral slope by Fornasier et al. (2007). For direct comparison the color scale has been chosen such that it corresponds roughly to the SDSS color bar in the top panel. The bottom shows the H-magnitude as a function of proper inclination and g–r color from the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) observations (Schemel & Brown 2021). Trojan (5258) Rhoeo is a clear outlier with respect to proper eccentricity and inclination as well as ZTF color and therefore a very likely interloper. See Tables 3 and 4 for all details on the family members depicted here.
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: The proper elements of the L 4 swarm (black circles) and the Eurybates family (pink circles) are shown. The left panel shows the proper semimajor axis, a prop, and proper eccentricity, e prop, while the right panel shows the proper inclination, i prop. The family is particularly well defined in inclination and hence easily stands out in the right panel.
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: The histogram shows all L4 Trojans (orange) and all Eurybates family members (purple) with known SDSS colors. The Eurybates family is significantly bluer than the L4 Trojans overall.
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: Critical impact energy, ﹩{Q}_{D}^{* }﹩, according to different studies (BA99; Benz & Asphaug 1999; LS09 Leinhardt & Stewart 2009; B05 Bottke et al. 2005; B20 Bottke et al. 2020; J10 Jutzi et al. 2010) are shown in the left panel. The right panel shows three different model assumptions Q 0 (dashed green), 10Q 0 (dotted green), and 100Q 0 (solid green) as well as a ﹩{Q}_{D}^{* }﹩ with a minimum of 20 m (purple line). In addition, the literature values from Benz & Asphaug (1999), blue, and Leinhardt & Stewart (2009), orange, are shown as a reference. This illustrates that our weakest material (Q 0) is slightly weaker than the weak ice from Leinhardt & Stewart (2009), while our strongest material (100Q 0) is slightly stronger than the basaltic material from Benz & Asphaug (1999).
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: The left panel shows the evolved SFDs after 4.5 Gy assuming a ﹩{Q}_{D}^{* }﹩ with ﹩{D}_{\min }=20﹩ m. For reference the initial SFD is shown in orange. The right panel shows the slopes assuming a local power law as well as the theoretical slopes (solid black) given by Equation (3). Both the largest and smallest Trojans approach the predicted slopes. The intermediate size regime shows a mild wave of the SFD, which steepens up between 1 and 10 km before becoming shallow below 1 km and finally converging to the strength regime slope.
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: The initial Trojan SFD is shown in orange. The faint lines in purple are 300 different SFDs after 4.5 Gy of collisional grinding assuming ﹩{Q}_{D}^{* }={Q}_{0}﹩ while the blue lines assume ﹩{Q}_{D}^{* }=100{Q}_{0}﹩.
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: The fraction of outcomes for the Eurybates-Queta system are shown for a family age of 1 Gy (left panel), and 4.5 Gy (right panel). A static SFD with a slope of 2.1 between 2 m and 100 km (Section 4.1) is assumed here. A total of 1000 runs were performed to estimate the fraction of outcomes of each case.
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: The left panel shows the survival probability of Queta as a function of the family age for the different ﹩{Q}_{D}^{* }﹩ of our study. The right panel shows the same information but as a function of collisional strength. The two black lines show the 10% and 50% survival contours. Cases below the 10% contour should be discarded as viable cases. For these cases a static SFD with a cumulative slope of 2.1 between 2 m and 100 km was assumed.
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: The left panel shows the survival probability of Queta for the evolving Trojan SFD case as a function of the family age for the different ﹩{Q}_{D}^{* }﹩ of our study. The right panel shows the same information but as a function of collisional strength. The two black lines show the 10% and 50% survival contours. Cases below the 10% contour should be discarded as viable cases.
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: The fraction of outcomes for the Eurybates-Queta system are shown for a family age of 1 Gy (left panel), and 4.5 Gy (right panel). The results here take into account the changing SFD due to collisional grinding (Section 4.2). A total of 1000 runs were performed to estimate the fraction of outcomes of each case.
Paper: Implications for the Collisional Strength of Jupiter Trojans from the Eurybates Family
Authors: Raphael Marschall, David Nesvorný, Rogerio Deienno, Ian Wong, Harold F. Levison, William F. Bottke
Figure caption: The fraction of outcomes for the Eurybates-Queta system are shown for a family age of 4.5 Gy when the initial Jupiter Trojan SFD is shallow (power law of 1) below 10 km.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Iapetus in-orbit differences from SAT427.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Mimas in-orbit differences from Lainey.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Enceladus in-orbit differences from Lainey.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Hyperion in-orbit differences from SAT427.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Tethys in-orbit differences from Lainey.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Dione in-orbit differences from Lainey.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Rhea in-orbit differences from Lainey.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Titan in-orbit differences from SAT427.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Rhea in-orbit differences from SAT427.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Iapetus in-orbit differences from Lainey.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Ring position angle residuals.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Ring radius residuals.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Cassini range residuals.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Hyperion in-orbit differences from Lainey.
Paper: The Orbits of the Main Saturnian Satellites, the Saturnian System Gravity Field, and the Orientation of Saturn’s Pole 
Authors: Robert. A. Jacobson
Figure caption: Titan in-orbit differences from Lainey.
Paper: The Detectability of Rocky Planet Surface and Atmosphere Composition with the JWST: The Case of LHS 3844b
Authors: Emily A. Whittaker, Matej Malik, Jegug Ih, Eliza M.-R. Kempton, Megan Mansfield, Jacob L. Bean, Edwin S. Kite, Daniel D. B. Koll, Timothy W. Cronin, Renyu Hu
Figure caption: Top: Posterior distributions of the retrieved volume mixing ratios of CO2, SO2, H2O, and CH4 using atmospheric forward models without a nongray surface. The retrieved mean and 1σ width is given on top of each panel and shown with black solid and dashed vertical lines. The input mixing ratio (the “true” value) is shown as a red vertical line. The atmospheric composition used in the forward model is listed below the horizontal axis label. All atmospheric species are recovered in the retrieval, although the retrieved mixing ratio tends to be somewhat overpredicted for CO2, SO2, and CH4. Bottom: Posterior distributions of the retrieved H2O volume mixing ratios from the surface-only (no atmosphere) forward models. The surface crust used in the forward model is listed below the horizontal axis label. The basaltic, iron-oxidized, and ultramafic surfaces lead to a relatively pronounced posterior distribution that may erroneously be interpreted as a weak detection of atmospheric H2O.
Paper: The Detectability of Rocky Planet Surface and Atmosphere Composition with the JWST: The Case of LHS 3844b
Authors: Emily A. Whittaker, Matej Malik, Jegug Ih, Eliza M.-R. Kempton, Megan Mansfield, Jacob L. Bean, Edwin S. Kite, Daniel D. B. Koll, Timothy W. Cronin, Renyu Hu
Figure caption: Posterior distributions of volume mixing ratios using the O2 with 1 ppm H2O atmosphere as input for the retrieval modeling, once without a nongray surface (top) and once with an ultramafic surface (bottom). The retrieved mean and 1σ width is given on top of each panel and shown with black solid and dashed vertical lines. The input mixing ratio (the “true” value) is shown as a red vertical line. Compared to the atmosphere-only case, adding the ultramafic signal leads to “washed-out” posteriors making it harder to place limits on the mixing ratios. Note that O2 and N2 are treated as background gases in the retrieval modeling and are not directly retrieved.
Paper: The Detectability of Rocky Planet Surface and Atmosphere Composition with the JWST: The Case of LHS 3844b
Authors: Emily A. Whittaker, Matej Malik, Jegug Ih, Eliza M.-R. Kempton, Megan Mansfield, Jacob L. Bean, Edwin S. Kite, Daniel D. B. Koll, Timothy W. Cronin, Renyu Hu
Figure caption: Left: Surface temperature obtained with HELIOS vs. inferred temperature of the blackbody fit for simulated MIRI LRS data at R = 10. The black dotted line represents the location where the inferred and HELIOS temperatures are equal. The error bars correspond to five eclipse observations. The choice of an emissivity of 1 when inferring the temperature causes it to be an underestimate compared to the true surface temperature. Right: Analogous to the left panel but showing the Bond albedo vs. inferred albedo. The inferred albedo is calculated with Equation (1) using the inferred temperature of the blackbody fit.
Paper: The Detectability of Rocky Planet Surface and Atmosphere Composition with the JWST: The Case of LHS 3844b
Authors: Emily A. Whittaker, Matej Malik, Jegug Ih, Eliza M.-R. Kempton, Megan Mansfield, Jacob L. Bean, Edwin S. Kite, Daniel D. B. Koll, Timothy W. Cronin, Renyu Hu
Figure caption: Temperature–pressure (T–P) profiles for oxidizing/O2-dominated atmosphere models (left) and reducing/N2-dominated atmosphere models (right) assuming a surface pressure of 10−3 bars (top) and 10 bars (bottom).
Paper: The Detectability of Rocky Planet Surface and Atmosphere Composition with the JWST: The Case of LHS 3844b
Authors: Emily A. Whittaker, Matej Malik, Jegug Ih, Eliza M.-R. Kempton, Megan Mansfield, Jacob L. Bean, Edwin S. Kite, Daniel D. B. Koll, Timothy W. Cronin, Renyu Hu
Figure caption: Secondary eclipse spectra of surface-only model pairs over the full range of the NIRSpec G395H (top) and MIRI LRS (bottom) bandpasses with overlaid mock data points at R = 3. The error bars correspond to five secondary eclipse observations. The model spectra are downsampled to R = 100 for clarity.
Paper: The Detectability of Rocky Planet Surface and Atmosphere Composition with the JWST: The Case of LHS 3844b
Authors: Emily A. Whittaker, Matej Malik, Jegug Ih, Eliza M.-R. Kempton, Megan Mansfield, Jacob L. Bean, Edwin S. Kite, Daniel D. B. Koll, Timothy W. Cronin, Renyu Hu
Figure caption: Secondary eclipse spectra of surface-only model pairs over the range of selected surface features within the MIRI LRS bandpass with overlaid mock data points. Each case uses a resolution (shown in the top left corner) to optimally match the spectral features. The error bars correspond to five secondary eclipse observations. The model spectra are downsampled to R = 100 for clarity.
Paper: The Detectability of Rocky Planet Surface and Atmosphere Composition with the JWST: The Case of LHS 3844b
Authors: Emily A. Whittaker, Matej Malik, Jegug Ih, Eliza M.-R. Kempton, Megan Mansfield, Jacob L. Bean, Edwin S. Kite, Daniel D. B. Koll, Timothy W. Cronin, Renyu Hu
Figure caption: Secondary eclipse spectra of atmospheric models vs. surface-only models over the range of the strongest absorption bands in the respective models, overlaid with MIRI LRS (left) and NIRSpec G395H (right) simulated data points. The metal-rich surface is used for this test. The error bars show the uncertainties for five eclipse observations. The model spectra are downsampled from the native resolution to R = 100 for clarity.
Paper: The Detectability of Rocky Planet Surface and Atmosphere Composition with the JWST: The Case of LHS 3844b
Authors: Emily A. Whittaker, Matej Malik, Jegug Ih, Eliza M.-R. Kempton, Megan Mansfield, Jacob L. Bean, Edwin S. Kite, Daniel D. B. Koll, Timothy W. Cronin, Renyu Hu
Figure caption: Predicted Spitzer 4.5 μm eclipse depth for the explored atmospheric models in combination with a basaltic surface as a function of the surface pressure compared to the Spitzer measurement (black horizontal line). Oxidizing/O2-dominated atmospheres are on the left and reducing/N2-dominated atmospheres on the right. The gray shaded area corresponds to a 1σ uncertainty, and the pink shaded area to a 3σ uncertainty in the negative direction from the observed value.
Paper: The Detectability of Rocky Planet Surface and Atmosphere Composition with the JWST: The Case of LHS 3844b
Authors: Emily A. Whittaker, Matej Malik, Jegug Ih, Eliza M.-R. Kempton, Megan Mansfield, Jacob L. Bean, Edwin S. Kite, Daniel D. B. Koll, Timothy W. Cronin, Renyu Hu
Figure caption: Same as Figure 8 but using simulated observations with the NIRSpec G395H instrument at R = 10.
Paper: Tentative Evidence for Transit-timing Variations of WASP-161b
Authors: Fan Yang, Ranga-Ram Chary
Figure caption: Figure showing the evolution in the WASP-161b transit midpoint as a function of time. We show the difference in the transit midpoints relative to the TESS-measured ephemeris. The black points indicate the timing obtained from the SSO-Europa and TESS observations. The orange solid line presents the linear model with a constant period fit to the TESS observations and our timings derived from the archival SSO-Europa observations. The red solid line is the quadratic model (period changing linearly with time as expected for tidal dissipation) fit to the timings from SSO-Europa and TESS light curves. The black solid line is the quadratic model to the Barkaoui et al. (2019) reported and TESS timings which is inconsistent with the timing from SSO-Europa light curve. The dashed green blue and green lines indicate precession models which are not significantly different from quadratic models when fitting the timing evolution. The green region indicates the forthcoming CHEOPS data which will be able to distinguish between the models.
Paper: Tentative Evidence for Transit-timing Variations of WASP-161b
Authors: Fan Yang, Ranga-Ram Chary
Figure caption: Fits to the archival SSO-Europa light curve from Barkaoui et al. (2019). The symbols are similar to the top panel of Figure 1. The horizontal black line is the best-fit transit to the data. The middle panel gives the LC residual from the fit where we can identify significant negative clumps. These clumps are likely due to the ground-based observation quality and are not correctable through transit modeling. The Shapiro-Wilk p value is less than 0.01, indicating the residuals are not Gaussian. In comparison, the TESS light curve in Figure 1 is well behaved. The bottom panel zooms in around the transit midpoint for clarity. The red vertical dotted line in the lower panel presents the fitting midpoint while the green vertical line indicates the midpoint predicted by TESS data with a constant period assumption. The offset is 6.97 minutes, equivalent to 4.40σ. The TESS data indicate that the transit midpoint should be later in the SSO-Europa light curve, which suggests that the orbital period of the planet may be decreasing with time.
Paper: Tentative Evidence for Transit-timing Variations of WASP-161b
Authors: Fan Yang, Ranga-Ram Chary
Figure caption: Combined-model fit to TESS light-curve (LC) data, and the radial-velocity (RV) data from Barkaoui et al. (2019). Upper panel: the blue points are photometry from 2021 observations; red points, binned observations for clarity; black line, fitted model to the light curve; yellow region, 1σ significance region encompassing 68% of the data points. The fitting residual is given in the middle panel as blue points. The p value from the Shapiro-Wilk test is 0.223, indicating a good Gaussian distribution. Lower panel: the black points indicate the RV observations. The red dash line gives the RV fitting with free eccentricity. The blue dash line shows the RV fitting with 0 eccentricity—it clearly is a worse fit to the data as quantified in Table 1.
Paper: Tentative Evidence for Transit-timing Variations of WASP-161b
Authors: Fan Yang, Ranga-Ram Chary
Figure caption: Our derived difference in transit midpoints of WASP-161b from SSO-Europa and TESS data. The ephemeris is obtained from fitting to only TESS timings (black points), using the MCMC method. The green area indicates the 16%–84% percentile region of all the MCMC chain predictions. The red point is the transit midpoint difference in the archival SSO-Europa data compared to the TESS ephemeris. The midpoint of the SSO-Europa transit is 6.6 minutes earlier than that estimated from the TESS data.
Paper: The Demographics of Kepler's Earths and Super-Earths into the Habitable Zone
Authors: Galen J. Bergsten, Ilaria Pascucci, Gijs D. Mulders, Rachel B. Fernandes, Tommi T. Koskinen
Figure caption: Comparison of habitable zone occurrence rates for Earth-sized planets. Our result for the combined [0.56, 1.63] M ⊙ sample is plotted at full opacity, and lower-opacity points denote results from individual fits to five stellar mass bins with boundaries spanning {0.56, 0.81, 0.91, 1.01, 1.16, 1.63} M ⊙ (increasing in mass from top to bottom). Circles indicate values assuming the occurrence follows a functional form (our work; Bryson et al. 2021, 2020b; Neil & Rogers 2020; Pascucci et al. 2019; Zink et al. 2019; Garrett et al. 2018; and Mulders et al. 2018), and squares indicate values from grid-based occurrence rates (Kunimoto & Matthews 2020; Hsu et al. 2019). The left-pointing arrows indicate upper limits. The blue region represents works directly considering an underlying population of intrinsically rocky planets, the yellow region represents works considering reliability, and our work (shown in green) implements both considerations. The vertical gray line indicates the occurrence values from ExoPAG SAG13 via Kopparapu et al. (2018) used in the final reports of the LUVOIR and HabEx missions. A similar plot for Γ⊕ estimates prior to Bryson et al. (2021) appears in Kunimoto & Matthews (2020; their Figure 14).