adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: A Pilot Radio Search for Magnetic Activity in Directly Imaged Exoplanets
Authors: Y. Cendes, P. K. G. Williams, E. Berger
Figure caption: VLA C-band images of the GU Psc (left) and Ross 458 (right) systems, spanning 130″ × 75″ and oriented with north up and east to the left. We show the position of the star (green circle) and the position of the exoplanet (blue circle), and provide a zoomed-in insert of the GU Psc source on the left because it is not visible at the scale of the larger image. The positional data for Ross 458 are from Goldman et al. (2010) and for GU Psc from Naud et al. (2014).
Paper: Spectroscopy of Candidate Members of the Sco-Cen Complex 
Authors: K. L. Luhman, T. L. Esplin
Figure caption: Near-IR color–magnitude diagram from 2MASS, UKIDSS, and VHS for candidate members of Ophiuchus that are located within the field from Esplin et al. (2018) and that have spectral classifications (red and blue points, Table 3). We also show the remaining IR sources in that field that are not rejected by available membership constraints (green crosses). We have marked a boundary that follows the lower envelope of the known members of Upper Sco and Ophiuchus (dashed line) and the UKIDSS completeness limit (solid line).
Paper: A Pilot Radio Search for Magnetic Activity in Directly Imaged Exoplanets
Authors: Y. Cendes, P. K. G. Williams, E. Berger
Figure caption: Radio spectral luminosity as a function of mass for the exoplanets in our survey (red triangles), for detected UCDs (blue circles; flares and quiescent emission), and for previously observed exoplanets (green triangles). Data for the UCDs are from Pineda et al. (2017) and references therein, while the data for the other exoplanet are from Bastian et al. (2000), Pineda et al. (2017), and Lazio et al. (2010). The exoplanet masses for our sample are from the references listed in Table 1, while the masses for the other exoplanets are from Gregory & Fischer (2010), Borsa et al. (2015), Stassun et al. (2017), Bourrier et al. (2018), Luhn et al. (2019), Butler et al. (2006), Rosenthal et al. (2021), and Feng et al. (2020).
Paper: Spectroscopy of Candidate Members of the Sco-Cen Complex 
Authors: K. L. Luhman, T. L. Esplin
Figure caption: Same as Figure 6, but for candidate members of Lupus (Table 4) that are located within the fields toward clouds 1–4 from Luhman (2020). These data are from 2MASS.
Paper: Spectroscopy of Candidate Members of the Sco-Cen Complex 
Authors: K. L. Luhman, T. L. Esplin
Figure caption: Same as Figure 6, but for candidate members of Upper Sco that are located within the triangular field from Luhman & Esplin (2020), excluding Ophiuchus.
Paper: Characterizing Sparse Asteroid Light Curves with Gaussian Processes
Authors: Christina Willecke Lindberg, Daniela Huppenkothen, R. Lynne Jones, Bryce T. Bolin, Mario Jurić, V. Zach Golkhou, Eric C. Bellm, Andrew J. Drake, Matthew J. Graham, Russ R. Laher, Ashish A. Mahabal, Frank J. Masci, Reed Riddle, Kyung Min Shin
Figure caption: Top left: posterior distribution of the period for Asteroid 1388 Aphrodite. Top right: 5th–95th percentile of the posterior distribution. Note that in the top two profiles, the posterior appears as thin, sparse peaks as a result of its multimodal topology. Middle: modes with the highest and second highest probability mass (84.9% and 6.2% of samples, respectively), with the yellow line denoting the highest bin of the histogram, from which the period for the mode is calculated (11.94594 and 7.96627 hr). Dashed lines denote the 95th (light yellow) and 68th (green) percentile ranges. Bottom: ZTF observations (black) folded at the respective periods determined from the middle plots. Yellow lines are three realizations of Gaussian processes with periods similar (within ±0.5 hr) to the folding periods. These models span from the start of the observational window, to 20 times their respective folding periods, allowing us to see how the rotational profile varies over time.
Paper: Characterizing Sparse Asteroid Light Curves with Gaussian Processes
Authors: Christina Willecke Lindberg, Daniela Huppenkothen, R. Lynne Jones, Bryce T. Bolin, Mario Jurić, V. Zach Golkhou, Eric C. Bellm, Andrew J. Drake, Matthew J. Graham, Russ R. Laher, Ashish A. Mahabal, Frank J. Masci, Reed Riddle, Kyung Min Shin
Figure caption: ZTF observations of asteroid 1388 Aphrodite folded at 11.946 hr (top) and 7.966 hr (bottom). The yellow lines are folded realizations of a Gaussian process model conditioned on the data and using parameters drawn from the mode at 11.946 ± 0.5 hr (top), and from the mode at 7.966 ± 0.5 hr. As opposed to the bottom panels in Figure 10, these models span the entire observational window of the asteroid. Covering the full observational range reveals how the rotational profile varies over time. This variation is particularly apparent in the bottom panel where the model exploits a degeneracy between the rotational period and the metric M to generate a light curve that matches the observations despite a shorter period P by enforcing large changes in the rotational profile over the 139 days of observations.
Paper: Characterizing Sparse Asteroid Light Curves with Gaussian Processes
Authors: Christina Willecke Lindberg, Daniela Huppenkothen, R. Lynne Jones, Bryce T. Bolin, Mario Jurić, V. Zach Golkhou, Eric C. Bellm, Andrew J. Drake, Matthew J. Graham, Russ R. Laher, Ashish A. Mahabal, Frank J. Masci, Reed Riddle, Kyung Min Shin
Figure caption: This figure, also called a corner plot, presents a visualization of the posterior probability distribution of model parameters for Asteroid 1388 Aphrodite. Because the posterior pdf is a six-dimensional distribution, this visualization aims to make the information contained in the posterior accessible by unfolding it into a series of 1D and 2D representations. On the diagonal, we present histograms of the marginalized posterior probabilities for each parameter. On the off-diagonal, we show scatter plots for all pairwise combinations of parameters. The median of each distribution is marked on the histograms and included in the title of each column, along with the 16th and 84th percentile differences. A long, M, and A periodic are plotted on a logarithmic scale.
Paper: Characterizing Sparse Asteroid Light Curves with Gaussian Processes
Authors: Christina Willecke Lindberg, Daniela Huppenkothen, R. Lynne Jones, Bryce T. Bolin, Mario Jurić, V. Zach Golkhou, Eric C. Bellm, Andrew J. Drake, Matthew J. Graham, Russ R. Laher, Ashish A. Mahabal, Frank J. Masci, Reed Riddle, Kyung Min Shin
Figure caption: Top left: posterior distribution of the period for Asteroid 299 Thora. Top right: 5th–95th percentile of the posterior distribution. Middle: modes with the highest and second highest probability mass (87.5% and 7.4% of samples, respectively), with the yellow line denoting the highest bin of the histogram, from which the period for the mode is calculated (269.78683 and 132.57060 hr). Dashed lines denote the 95th (light yellow) and 68th (green) percentile ranges. Bottom: ZTF observations (black) folded at the respective periods determined from the middle plots. Yellow lines are three realizations of Gaussian processes with periods similar (within ±0.5 hr) to the folding periods. These models span from the start of the observational window, to 20 times their respective folding periods, allowing us to see how the rotational profile varies over time.
Paper: Characterizing Sparse Asteroid Light Curves with Gaussian Processes
Authors: Christina Willecke Lindberg, Daniela Huppenkothen, R. Lynne Jones, Bryce T. Bolin, Mario Jurić, V. Zach Golkhou, Eric C. Bellm, Andrew J. Drake, Matthew J. Graham, Russ R. Laher, Ashish A. Mahabal, Frank J. Masci, Reed Riddle, Kyung Min Shin
Figure caption: Top: posterior distribution of the period for Asteroid 821 Fanny, with logarithmic scales on both axes with a yellow line denoting 74.18 hr. Middle: mode with the highest probability mass (1.9% of samples) with a yellow line denoting the highest bin of the histogram, from which the period for the mode is calculated (74.18 hr). Bottom: ZTF observations (black) folded at the period determined from the middle plot. Yellow lines are three realizations of the Gaussian process with periods similar (within ± 0.5 hr) to the folding period. These models span from the start of the observational window, to 20 times the folding period (1500 hr).
Paper: Characterizing Sparse Asteroid Light Curves with Gaussian Processes
Authors: Christina Willecke Lindberg, Daniela Huppenkothen, R. Lynne Jones, Bryce T. Bolin, Mario Jurić, V. Zach Golkhou, Eric C. Bellm, Andrew J. Drake, Matthew J. Graham, Russ R. Laher, Ashish A. Mahabal, Frank J. Masci, Reed Riddle, Kyung Min Shin
Figure caption: Corner plot of model parameters for Asteroid 821 Fanny. The 50th percentile of each distribution is marked on the histograms and written in the title above, along with the 16th and 84th percentile differences. A long, M, and A periodic are plotted on a logarithmic scale.
Paper: Characterizing Sparse Asteroid Light Curves with Gaussian Processes
Authors: Christina Willecke Lindberg, Daniela Huppenkothen, R. Lynne Jones, Bryce T. Bolin, Mario Jurić, V. Zach Golkhou, Eric C. Bellm, Andrew J. Drake, Matthew J. Graham, Russ R. Laher, Ashish A. Mahabal, Frank J. Masci, Reed Riddle, Kyung Min Shin
Figure caption: The full marginalized posterior distribution of the period parameter with varying magnitude uncertainties, as opposed to Figure 6 which only shows the distribution near the true period. The dashed blue line indicates the true period from our simulated data.
Paper: Characterizing Sparse Asteroid Light Curves with Gaussian Processes
Authors: Christina Willecke Lindberg, Daniela Huppenkothen, R. Lynne Jones, Bryce T. Bolin, Mario Jurić, V. Zach Golkhou, Eric C. Bellm, Andrew J. Drake, Matthew J. Graham, Russ R. Laher, Ashish A. Mahabal, Frank J. Masci, Reed Riddle, Kyung Min Shin
Figure caption: Corner plot of model parameters for Asteroid 299 Thora. The 50th percentile of each distribution is marked on the histograms and written in the title above, along with the 16th and 84th percentile differences. A long, M, and A periodic are plotted on a logarithmic scale.
Paper: Characterizing Sparse Asteroid Light Curves with Gaussian Processes
Authors: Christina Willecke Lindberg, Daniela Huppenkothen, R. Lynne Jones, Bryce T. Bolin, Mario Jurić, V. Zach Golkhou, Eric C. Bellm, Andrew J. Drake, Matthew J. Graham, Russ R. Laher, Ashish A. Mahabal, Frank J. Masci, Reed Riddle, Kyung Min Shin
Figure caption: ZTF observations of Asteroid 821 Fanny folded at one of the reported periods, 238.9 hr.
Paper: The Emission Spectrum of the Hot Jupiter WASP-79b from HST/WFC3
Authors: Trevor O. Foote, Nikole K. Lewis, Brian M. Kilpatrick, Jayesh M. Goyal, Giovanni Bruno, Hannah R. Wakeford, Nina Robbins-Blanch, Tiffany Kataria, Ryan J. MacDonald, Mercedes López-Morales, David K. Sing, Thomas Mikal-Evans, Vincent Bourrier, Gregory Henry, Lars A. Buchhave
Figure caption: Observed planet-to-star flux ratios/eclipse depths for WASP-79b, with observations from Garhart et al. (2020) and Baxter et al. (2020) using Spitzer data at 3.6 and 4.5 μm, along with HST/WFC3 G141 data reduced herein. Plotted over the observations are possible disequilibrium atmospheric models from Goyal et al. (2020), which include enhanced abundances of FeH, VO, and H−. There is little differentiation in the models at the Spitzer wavelengths (3.6 and 4.5 μm); however, at the HST wavelengths (1.1–1.7 μm) these models become distinguishable from one another, and in particular the 1.58 μm channel measurement is suggestive of a substantially increased abundance of H− in WASP-79b’s dayside atmosphere, with an abundance of ∼10−7 compared to the ∼10−11 abundance expected from equilibrium predictions.
Paper: The Emission Spectrum of the Hot Jupiter WASP-79b from HST/WFC3
Authors: Trevor O. Foote, Nikole K. Lewis, Brian M. Kilpatrick, Jayesh M. Goyal, Giovanni Bruno, Hannah R. Wakeford, Nina Robbins-Blanch, Tiffany Kataria, Ryan J. MacDonald, Mercedes López-Morales, David K. Sing, Thomas Mikal-Evans, Vincent Bourrier, Gregory Henry, Lars A. Buchhave
Figure caption: Observed planet-to-star flux ratios/eclipse depths for WASP-79b, with observations from Garhart et al. (2020) and Baxter et al. (2020) using Spitzer data at 3.6 and 4.5 μm, along with HST/WFC3 G141 data reduced herein. Plotted over the observations are four possible equilibrium atmospheric models from Goyal et al. (2020). All four models have the same C/O ratio of 0.55 but vary with recirculation factors of 0.75 and 1.00 and metallicities of 1× and 10× solar. Here it is clear that the observations favor atmospheric models with an RCF = 0.75, suggesting that ∼25% of the incoming stellar energy is transported from the dayside to nightside of the planet. Of those models the observation at 4.5 μm helps break the degeneracy in metallicity favoring the 1× solar model.
Paper: The Emission Spectrum of the Hot Jupiter WASP-79b from HST/WFC3
Authors: Trevor O. Foote, Nikole K. Lewis, Brian M. Kilpatrick, Jayesh M. Goyal, Giovanni Bruno, Hannah R. Wakeford, Nina Robbins-Blanch, Tiffany Kataria, Ryan J. MacDonald, Mercedes López-Morales, David K. Sing, Thomas Mikal-Evans, Vincent Bourrier, Gregory Henry, Lars A. Buchhave
Figure caption: Observed planet-to-star flux ratios/eclipse depths for WASP-79b, with observations from Garhart et al. (2020) and Baxter et al. (2020) using Spitzer data at 3.6 and 4.5 μm, along with HST/WFC3 G141 data reduced herein. Plotted over the observations are three equilibrium atmospheric models, all with C/O ratios of 0.55 and solar metallicities. The blue and green models are cloud-free with RCFs of 0.75 and 1.00, respectively, from Goyal et al. (2020), while the black model has an RCF of 1.00 and includes clouds. Note that the model with an RCF of 1.00 that includes clouds closely resembles the cloud-free model with an RCF of 0.75.
Paper: The Emission Spectrum of the Hot Jupiter WASP-79b from HST/WFC3
Authors: Trevor O. Foote, Nikole K. Lewis, Brian M. Kilpatrick, Jayesh M. Goyal, Giovanni Bruno, Hannah R. Wakeford, Nina Robbins-Blanch, Tiffany Kataria, Ryan J. MacDonald, Mercedes López-Morales, David K. Sing, Thomas Mikal-Evans, Vincent Bourrier, Gregory Henry, Lars A. Buchhave
Figure caption: Observed planet-to-star flux ratios/eclipse depths for WASP-79b, with observations from Garhart et al. (2020) and Baxter et al. (2020) using Spitzer data at 3.6 and 4.5 μm, along with HST/WFC3 G141 data reduced herein. Plotted over the observations are models for planet-to-star flux ratios assuming a stellar blackbody with a temperature of 6600 K (Smalley et al. 2012) and a range of planetary blackbodies with temperatures ranging from 1500 to 2000 K in 100 K increments as indicated by the figure legend. The inset highlights just the HST/WFC3 G141 eclipse depths from this paper. Note that while the HST- and Spitzer-measured eclipse depths for WASP-79b are consistent with a roughly 1900 K blackbody, the HST points suggest that the WFC3 G141 bandpass is probing slightly cooler layers of the atmosphere compared to those being probed by the longer-wavelength Spitzer observations.
Paper: The Emission Spectrum of the Hot Jupiter WASP-79b from HST/WFC3
Authors: Trevor O. Foote, Nikole K. Lewis, Brian M. Kilpatrick, Jayesh M. Goyal, Giovanni Bruno, Hannah R. Wakeford, Nina Robbins-Blanch, Tiffany Kataria, Ryan J. MacDonald, Mercedes López-Morales, David K. Sing, Thomas Mikal-Evans, Vincent Bourrier, Gregory Henry, Lars A. Buchhave
Figure caption: The 2D spectrum from a frame taken during the first visit of WASP-79b before background subtraction and spectra extraction. A contaminant source is evident in the lower center of the frame, and the second-order spectra are seen on the right side of frame. The yellow box indicates the region used for background estimation. The larger red box indicates the search area set for the first-order spectra optimization. The smaller red box is the end result first-order spectra box.
Paper: The Emission Spectrum of the Hot Jupiter WASP-79b from HST/WFC3
Authors: Trevor O. Foote, Nikole K. Lewis, Brian M. Kilpatrick, Jayesh M. Goyal, Giovanni Bruno, Hannah R. Wakeford, Nina Robbins-Blanch, Tiffany Kataria, Ryan J. MacDonald, Mercedes López-Morales, David K. Sing, Thomas Mikal-Evans, Vincent Bourrier, Gregory Henry, Lars A. Buchhave
Figure caption: Band-integrated WLC and residuals for the model, where t sec is a free parameter. Top left: raw WLC (black dots) and eclipse model (blue). The eclipse model was made using BATMAN (Kreidberg 2015), with the orbital parameters from Table 1. Bottom left: residuals between the raw data and model in parts per million (ppm), showing both the linear and hook systematics present in the data. Top right: WLC after systematic corrections (black dots) with the eclipse model (blue). Bottom right: residuals between corrected data and model in ppm.
Paper: The Emission Spectrum of the Hot Jupiter WASP-79b from HST/WFC3
Authors: Trevor O. Foote, Nikole K. Lewis, Brian M. Kilpatrick, Jayesh M. Goyal, Giovanni Bruno, Hannah R. Wakeford, Nina Robbins-Blanch, Tiffany Kataria, Ryan J. MacDonald, Mercedes López-Morales, David K. Sing, Thomas Mikal-Evans, Vincent Bourrier, Gregory Henry, Lars A. Buchhave
Figure caption: Pressure–temperature profiles used in the calculations of the emission models from Goyal et al. (2020) that are highlighted in Figures 6, 7, and 8.
Paper: The Emission Spectrum of the Hot Jupiter WASP-79b from HST/WFC3
Authors: Trevor O. Foote, Nikole K. Lewis, Brian M. Kilpatrick, Jayesh M. Goyal, Giovanni Bruno, Hannah R. Wakeford, Nina Robbins-Blanch, Tiffany Kataria, Ryan J. MacDonald, Mercedes López-Morales, David K. Sing, Thomas Mikal-Evans, Vincent Bourrier, Gregory Henry, Lars A. Buchhave
Figure caption: Observed relative spectrum (red), along with the WFC3 G141 grism sensitivity curve convolved with a relative Phoenix model (blue). Top: spectrum after initial calibration following Kuntschner et al. (2009). Bottom: empirically adjusted spectrum aligned with a Phoenix model with sensitivity curve.
Paper: Apparent Motion of the Circumstellar Envelope of CQ Tau in Scattered Light
Authors: Boris S. Safonov, Ivan A. Strakhov, Maria V. Goliguzova, Olga V. Voziakova
Figure caption: The approximation of an observation obtained at UT 2019 October 26 22:10 by the reference one (UT 2018 November 25 23:49). Left panel: corner plot of the marginalized posterior distributions for the model parameters: ﹩{q}_{\star }^{{\prime\prime} }﹩, ﹩{u}_{\star }^{{\prime\prime} }﹩, ζ, and η. The posterior was sampled by the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method; see the text for details. Contours in the two-dimensional distributions are for the ratio of the probability to its maximum value and correspond to 0.9, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, and 0.1. The optimal values of parameters and 68% confidence intervals are indicated in one-dimensional distributions by the solid and dashed lines, respectively. Right panel: the components of the residuals defined by Equations (B7) for the best fit indicated in the left panel. Absolute and phase parts of ﹩{{ \mathcal L }}_{Q}﹩ and ﹩{{ \mathcal L }}_{U}﹩ are given in upper and lower rows, respectively.
Paper: Apparent Motion of the Circumstellar Envelope of CQ Tau in Scattered Light
Authors: Boris S. Safonov, Ivan A. Strakhov, Maria V. Goliguzova, Olga V. Voziakova
Figure caption: Left panel: comparison of rotation angles η for individual observations with respect to two reference observations. Along the horizontal axis is η 1 evaluated relative to an observation at UT 2021 November 25; along the vertical axis is η 2 evaluated relative to an observation at UT 2020 October 14 (see Section 4.2 and Appendix B for details of approximation). Right panel: solid line—cumulative distribution function of differences η 1 − η 2, normalized by the uncertainties. Dashed line—normal distribution with variance equal to unity and mean equal to −0.4; see the text for the discussion.
Paper: PetroFit: A Python Package for Computing Petrosian Radii and Fitting Galaxy Light Profiles
Authors: Robel Geda, Steven M. Crawford, Lucas Hunt, Matthew Bershady, Erik Tollerud, Solohery Randriamampandry
Figure caption: The left panel shows the fraction of the total corrected flux that is recovered by using the default epsilon value (ϵ = 2). The right panel shows a line of best fit that approximates the difference in corrected and uncorrected magnitudes (i.e., Δm) for 0.5 ≤ n ≤ 15.
Paper: PetroFit: A Python Package for Computing Petrosian Radii and Fitting Galaxy Light Profiles
Authors: Robel Geda, Steven M. Crawford, Lucas Hunt, Matthew Bershady, Erik Tollerud, Solohery Randriamampandry
Figure caption: Three 1D Sérsic profiles are defined with r  e  = 25 but varying Sérsic indices. Each of the three profiles is convolved with the same PSF modeled by a Moffat function. Notice how the de Vaucouleurs profile (n = 4) is most affected by the PSF convolution.
Paper: PetroFit: A Python Package for Computing Petrosian Radii and Fitting Galaxy Light Profiles
Authors: Robel Geda, Steven M. Crawford, Lucas Hunt, Matthew Bershady, Erik Tollerud, Solohery Randriamampandry
Figure caption: Epsilon (ϵ) estimated using the Sérsic index n corrected and uncorrected C 2080 for 0.5 ≤ n ≤ 15 using Equations (B.8) and (B.9) (red lines).
Paper: PetroFit: A Python Package for Computing Petrosian Radii and Fitting Galaxy Light Profiles
Authors: Robel Geda, Steven M. Crawford, Lucas Hunt, Matthew Bershady, Erik Tollerud, Solohery Randriamampandry
Figure caption: Sérsic index n estimated using the corrected and uncorrected C 2080 for 0.5 ≤ n ≤ 15 using Equations (B.6) and (B.7) (red lines).
Paper: PetroFit: A Python Package for Computing Petrosian Radii and Fitting Galaxy Light Profiles
Authors: Robel Geda, Steven M. Crawford, Lucas Hunt, Matthew Bershady, Erik Tollerud, Solohery Randriamampandry
Figure caption: Approximation of eta using the Petrosian concentration index P 0502 for 0.5 ≤ n ≤ 15.
Paper: Multiwavelength Mitigation of Stellar Activity in Astrometric Planet Detection
Authors: Avi Kaplan-Lipkin, Bruce Macintosh, Alexander Madurowicz, Krishnamurthy Sowmya, Alexander Shapiro, Natalie Krivova, Sami K. Solanki
Figure caption: A comparison between a simulation in the Gaia B passband with and without a planet signal. The upper panels show the amplitude spectra of the simulations with just the stellar activity noise (upper left) and with an injected planet orbit for a 0.1 Earth-mass planet with a semimajor axis of 0.25 au (upper right). These amplitude spectra are derived from the methodology described in Section 2, with the injected planet orbit showing up in the upper right panel as a spike at the orbital period of T = 0.125 yr, obtained from Equation (6). The bottom panels show the signal-to-noise ratios derived from these amplitude spectra according to Equation (9). The 6σ detection threshold is shown as a dashed horizontal line. For the case without the planet, there are no signals detected (bottom left). For the case with the planet (bottom right), the signal-to-noise only surpasses the threshold at the orbital period of the planet, which is then flagged as a detection (with the spike indicated by arrows in the upper right panel). This orbital period is also marked by a vertical line in the left panels, but there is no planet signal there to detect.