adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: TOI-3785 b: A Low-density Neptune Orbiting an M2-dwarf Star
Authors: Luke C. Powers, Jessica Libby-Roberts, Andrea S. J. Lin, Caleb I. Cañas, Shubham Kanodia, Suvrath Mahadevan, Joe P. Ninan, Guđmundur Stefánsson, Arvind F. Gupta, Sinclaire Jones, Henry A. Kobulnicky, Andrew Monson, Brock A. Parker, Tera N. Swaby, Chad F. Bender, William D. Cochran, Leslie Hebb, Andrew J. Metcalf, Paul Robertson, Christian Schwab, John Wisniewski, Jason T. Wright
Figure caption: Top: the Neptune Desert as reported by Mazeh et al. (2016) in orbital period—planetary radius space. Indicated by the red dot is TOI-3785 b. Bottom: we reorient the Neptune Desert bounds to apply to insolation—radius space as per host star characteristics. The dark lines represent the desert for Sun-like stars that define appropriate bounds for FGK hosts. The gray lines show a redefined desert that considers the lower mass and luminosity of M-dwarf hosts, so much so that this boundary is no longer defined as a notable desert. If we instead use the insolation-based definition (black dashed line), only one planet around an M dwarf, TOI-532 b (see Table 6), falls inside the Neptune Desert. In both cases, only >3σ mass targets are considered.
Paper: TOI-3785 b: A Low-density Neptune Orbiting an M2-dwarf Star
Authors: Luke C. Powers, Jessica Libby-Roberts, Andrea S. J. Lin, Caleb I. Cañas, Shubham Kanodia, Suvrath Mahadevan, Joe P. Ninan, Guđmundur Stefánsson, Arvind F. Gupta, Sinclaire Jones, Henry A. Kobulnicky, Andrew Monson, Brock A. Parker, Tera N. Swaby, Chad F. Bender, William D. Cochran, Leslie Hebb, Andrew J. Metcalf, Paul Robertson, Christian Schwab, John Wisniewski, Jason T. Wright
Figure caption: Phase-folded RV points from both HPF (dark red) and NEID (gold) with the best-fit model plotted in blue along with the 1, 2, and 3σ contours (similar to Figure 1) generated from the exoplanet joint fit.
Paper: A Spectroscopic Thermometer: Individual Vibrational Band Spectroscopy with the Example of OH in the Atmosphere of WASP-33b
Authors: Sam O. M. Wright, Stevanus K. Nugroho, Matteo Brogi, Neale P. Gibson, Ernst J. W. de Mooij, Ingo Waldmann, Jonathan Tennyson, Hajime Kawahara, Masayuki Kuzuhara, Teruyuki Hirano, Takayuki Kotani, Yui Kawashima, Kento Masuda, Jayne L. Birkby, Chris A. Watson, Motohide Tamura, Konstanze Zwintz, Hiroki Harakawa, Tomoyuki Kudo, Klaus Hodapp, Shane Jacobson, Mihoko Konishi, Takashi Kurokawa, Jun Nishikawa, Masashi Omiya, Takuma Serizawa, Akitoshi Ueda, Sébastien Vievard, Sergei N. Yurchenko
Figure caption: Retrieved mixing ratios for OH compared with simulated spectra generated using OH with a disequilibrium, normal distribution peaking at v = 3.
Paper: TOI-3785 b: A Low-density Neptune Orbiting an M2-dwarf Star
Authors: Luke C. Powers, Jessica Libby-Roberts, Andrea S. J. Lin, Caleb I. Cañas, Shubham Kanodia, Suvrath Mahadevan, Joe P. Ninan, Guđmundur Stefánsson, Arvind F. Gupta, Sinclaire Jones, Henry A. Kobulnicky, Andrew Monson, Brock A. Parker, Tera N. Swaby, Chad F. Bender, William D. Cochran, Leslie Hebb, Andrew J. Metcalf, Paul Robertson, Christian Schwab, John Wisniewski, Jason T. Wright
Figure caption: 5σ contrast curve from NESSI in Sloan z’, showing no evidence of faint companions within 1.2″. Inset: The 2D reconstructed image of the 1.2″ region surrounding TOI-3785.
Paper: Satellite Optical Brightness
Authors: Forrest Fankhauser, J. Anthony Tyson, Jacob Askari
Figure caption: Plot of measured Starlink v1.5 brightness vs. solar phase angle. At low solar phase angles, brightness is dominated by backscatter from the solar array. At intermediate phase angles, light is diffusely scattered by the chassis. At high phase angles, light is more specularly reflected by the chassis. We note that second-generation Starlinks will off-point solar arrays and use a chassis material with lower diffuse reflection. These two changes reduce brightness at low and intermediate phase angles.
Paper: Satellite Optical Brightness
Authors: Forrest Fankhauser, J. Anthony Tyson, Jacob Askari
Figure caption: Measured data and BRDF fits for the primary surfaces of Starlink v1.5 Satellites. Data are shown at four incident angles. The ingoing and outgoing directions are given in spherical coordinates (θ  i , ϕ  i ) and (θ  o , ϕ  o ), respectively, where θ is the azimuthal angle and ϕ is the zenith angle. All BRDF data are “in-plane”, so θ  i  = 180° and θ  o  = 0°. Dashed gray lines show the BRDF at intermediate angles, spaced 10° apart. The solar array fit misses the specular peak, but because there is no orientation where light is specularly reflected by the solar array onto observers, this is not a problem.
Paper: Satellite Optical Brightness
Authors: Forrest Fankhauser, J. Anthony Tyson, Jacob Askari
Figure caption: The geometry for scattering of light from a point source off of a surface with area A to an observer at range d.
Paper: Satellite Optical Brightness
Authors: Forrest Fankhauser, J. Anthony Tyson, Jacob Askari
Figure caption: Geometry as seen in the observer’s frame O.
Paper: Satellite Optical Brightness
Authors: Forrest Fankhauser, J. Anthony Tyson, Jacob Askari
Figure caption: Both sunlight and earthshine are scattered by the satellite onto the night side of Earth’s surface.
Paper: Satellite Optical Brightness
Authors: Forrest Fankhauser, J. Anthony Tyson, Jacob Askari
Figure caption: We compare discretizations schemes by uniformly sampling 400 patches in both standard spherical coordinates and our custom coordinates. We see that our custom coordinate system generates a discretization that is more evenly distributed over the Earth’s surface.
Paper: Satellite Optical Brightness
Authors: Forrest Fankhauser, J. Anthony Tyson, Jacob Askari
Figure caption: The geometry of the satellite-centered frame. ﹩\hat{x}﹩ is out of the page.
Paper: X-Ray Emission of Ultraviolet Variable Active Galactic Nucleus Candidates
Authors: Erik J. Wasleske, Vivienne F. Baldassare
Figure caption: The SFR vs. 0.5–10 keV X-ray luminosity. The SFRs are the Bayesian SFRs estimated from our SED modeling. The relation between SFR and X-ray luminosity for normal galaxies is defined by Ranalli et al. (2003). Agostino & Salim (2019) adapted this relation for 0.5–10 keV X-ray luminosities. The dashed red line shows this adaptation, with the shaded red region quoting the intrinsic scatter of 0.3 dex (1σ) found by Ranalli et al. (2003). The gray shaded region reflects the selection criteria for X-ray AGN from Agostino et al. (2021, 2023), where AGN candidates are chosen to have an X-ray excess of ≥0.6 dex compared to the Ranalli et al. (2003) relation. Green dots, purple diamonds, and orange triangles represent BPT AGN, star-forming, and composite classifications on the BPT diagram (Baldwin et al. 1981), respectively. These values are taken from Wasleske et al. (2022). Blue plus signs represent absorption line–dominated spectra. Black squares represent galaxies that either did not have optical spectra or had spectra that could not be fit.
Paper: X-Ray Emission of Ultraviolet Variable Active Galactic Nucleus Candidates
Authors: Erik J. Wasleske, Vivienne F. Baldassare
Figure caption: Scatter plot of AGN to stellar luminosity measured from SED modeling. The thick red dashed–dotted line is the unity line. The other faint red curves are 0.5 dex deviations from unity. Points for NSA 631492 and 631480 are left off, as they exist in the far left, less luminous regime, compared to the rest of the sample. Marker shapes and colors are the same as in Figure 5.
Paper: X-Ray Emission of Ultraviolet Variable Active Galactic Nucleus Candidates
Authors: Erik J. Wasleske, Vivienne F. Baldassare
Figure caption: Plot of 2–10 keV luminosity vs. luminosity at 6 μm. The gray line and shaded region show the empirical relation and its uncertainty from Chen et al. (2017). The intrinsic relationships of Fiore et al. (2009) and Gandhi et al. (2009) are given as solid black lines, with the blue shaded area representing a range of possible intrinsic and unabsorbed X-ray luminosities for the given MIR power. Residuals relative to the Chen et al. (2017) relation are again given in the bottom panel. Marker shapes and colors are the same as in Figure 5.
Paper: X-Ray Emission of Ultraviolet Variable Active Galactic Nucleus Candidates
Authors: Erik J. Wasleske, Vivienne F. Baldassare
Figure caption: Comparison of α OX to monochromatic luminosity at 2500 Å. The relation derived for quasars from Just et al. (2007) is plotted as the gray line. Residuals from the Just et al. (2007) relation are given in the bottom panel. The BPT AGN have the tightest fit to this relation. Marker shapes and colors are the same as in Figure 5.
Paper: X-Ray Emission of Ultraviolet Variable Active Galactic Nucleus Candidates
Authors: Erik J. Wasleske, Vivienne F. Baldassare
Figure caption: Top: GALEX NUV light curve of NSA 64145 from Wasleske et al. (2022). Middle: GALEX NUV light curve of NSA 64272. Bottom: GALEX NUV light curve of NSA 64286. Each of these light curves show significant (>0.2 mag) variability across roughly 3 yr. Objects NSA 64272 and 64286 show a significant change in mean magnitude in one of their observation windows for a duration of about a month. Thus, we investigate the possibility of a TDE in Section 4.2.
Paper: X-Ray Emission of Ultraviolet Variable Active Galactic Nucleus Candidates
Authors: Erik J. Wasleske, Vivienne F. Baldassare
Figure caption: Plot of AGN vs. dust luminosity for our sample. Lines are the same as in Figure 6. Again, the points for NSA 631492 and 631480 are left off, as they exist in the far left, less luminous regime, compared to the rest of the sample. Marker shapes and colors are the same as in Figure 5.
Paper: X-Ray Emission of Ultraviolet Variable Active Galactic Nucleus Candidates
Authors: Erik J. Wasleske, Vivienne F. Baldassare
Figure caption: SED models of NSA 28616 (top) and NSA 64129 (bottom).
Paper: Comparing Apples with Apples: Robust Detection Limits for Exoplanet High-contrast Imaging in the Presence of Non-Gaussian Noise
Authors: Markus J. Bonse, Emily O. Garvin, Timothy D. Gebhard, Felix A. Dannert, Faustine Cantalloube, Gabriele Cugno, Olivier Absil, Jean Hayoz, Julien Milli, Markus Kasper, Sascha P. Quanz
Figure caption: The three main steps of the hypothesis testing framework introduced by Mawet et al. (2014), which we generalize in this paper. Step 1 shows a typical example of a residual image obtained after data postprocessing with PCA. A previously inserted artificial companion appears as a spot slightly brighter than the remaining speckle noise. More details on the data set are given in Section 4. In order to determine if the planet is real we extract values for the noise X and signal Y by averaging pixel values inside apertures. In Step 2 we formulate two competing hypotheses H 0 (top) and H 1 (bottom) for detection and nondetection, respectively. The orange and blue crosses correspond to the signal and noise values obtained from the residual image on the left. Is the signal bright enough to show that ﹩{ \mathcal X }﹩ and ﹩{ \mathcal Y }﹩ differ significantly in their means? In order to answer this question we calculate the test statistic of the two-sample t-test T obs = 2.28 (Equation (1)). Step 3: the detection uncertainty or FPF is given by the shaded red area under the t-distribution with ν = n − 1 = 9 degrees of freedom.
Paper: Comparing Apples with Apples: Robust Detection Limits for Exoplanet High-contrast Imaging in the Presence of Non-Gaussian Noise
Authors: Markus J. Bonse, Emily O. Garvin, Timothy D. Gebhard, Felix A. Dannert, Faustine Cantalloube, Gabriele Cugno, Olivier Absil, Jean Hayoz, Julien Milli, Markus Kasper, Sascha P. Quanz
Figure caption: The parametric bootstrap test introduced in this paper. The left side of the figure illustrates the key steps of the test, exemplary for Gaussian noise. The values used are identical to those in Figure 1. The numbers of the steps match with those used in the text. On the right, three histograms are given, which show the empirical distribution of p(T * = t∣H 0) for different numbers of bootstrap samples B. The actual test does not require us to compute histograms and the FPF is computed from the bootstrap samples ﹩{T}_{(1)}^{* }\,\leqslant ...\leqslant \,{T}_{(B)}^{* }﹩ directly (see Equations (4) and (5)). The results are compared with the t-distribution with ν = n − 1 = 9 degrees of freedom. Compared to the t-test, bootstrapping is much more versatile, since any distribution, not necessary Gaussian, can be assumed in step 3.
Paper: Comparing Apples with Apples: Robust Detection Limits for Exoplanet High-contrast Imaging in the Presence of Non-Gaussian Noise
Authors: Markus J. Bonse, Emily O. Garvin, Timothy D. Gebhard, Felix A. Dannert, Faustine Cantalloube, Gabriele Cugno, Olivier Absil, Jean Hayoz, Julien Milli, Markus Kasper, Sascha P. Quanz
Figure caption: The convergence distributions of the parametric bootstrapping, shown as histograms, in comparison with the normal and t-distribution. The top two plots show p(T = t∣H 0) under the assumption that F is Gaussian, one at a separation of 2 FWHM i.e., n = 11 and one at 8 FWHM i.e., n = 49. The plots show the same result as the right side of Figure 4 but for different n. The bottom two plots show p(T = t∣H 0) under the assumption of Laplacian noise. We use B = 108 bootstrap iterations.
Paper: Comparing Apples with Apples: Robust Detection Limits for Exoplanet High-contrast Imaging in the Presence of Non-Gaussian Noise
Authors: Markus J. Bonse, Emily O. Garvin, Timothy D. Gebhard, Felix A. Dannert, Faustine Cantalloube, Gabriele Cugno, Olivier Absil, Jean Hayoz, Julien Milli, Markus Kasper, Sascha P. Quanz
Figure caption: Deviations from a normal distribution in HCI residuals. The top two images show residual images for the β Pictoris data set: left with classical median ADI (Marois et al. 2006); right with full-frame PCA and 20 components. Below Q–Q plots are given to study the noise statistic of the pixel values inside the shaded areas at 1 FWHM, 4 FWHM, and 8 FWHM. The Q–Q plots compare the observed pixel values with normally distributed noise. A perfect match of observations and normal distribution would result in points exclusively on the gray diagonal line. We note, that the pixel values extracted from the shaded areas are not independent. The shown Q–Q plots only provide indicative evidence for the type of residual noise. But, they are not a proof for or against Gaussian distributed noise. A discussion on this topic can be found in Appendix C.