adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Same as Figure 14 but now taking into account the relative probability of observing companions with random orientations. When accounting for this ﹩\sin {i}_{* }﹩ isotropic inclination distribution, the sensitivity to a companion is roughly constant for a given semimajor axis from the ﹩\sin {i}_{* }﹩ envelope to i ≈ 90°. This results in a “truncated isotropic inclination distribution” with fewer companions having higher (more edge-on) inclinations and represents a more realistic outcome for the expected orbital inclination distribution of discoveries from blind direct imaging surveys.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Distribution functions of the minimum misalignment value, Δi, equal to the absolute difference between the stellar and orbital inclinations. Median values and 95.4% credible intervals are plotted as open circles and dark blue horizontal lines. Light-blue distributions are formally consistent with alignment. TWA 5 and Gl 229 are significantly misaligned (dark blue), and nine other systems are likely misaligned (blue). See Section 4.7 and Table 3 for details. The maximum misalignment (π − Δi) is shown in light gray. For Gl 229, this implies it is on a near-polar orbit.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Top: minimum stellar obliquity (Δi) as a function of companion mass. Color coding for each violin plot follows the scheme in Figure 11: light blue is consistent with alignment, while blue and dark blue colors denote likely spin–orbit misalignment. All planets below 10 M Jup with stellar obliquity constraints are consistent with spin–orbit alignment, although the sample remains small. The brown dwarf companions show a mix of aligned and misaligned systems with no apparent trend with companion mass. β Pic b and c have been added based on their true stellar obliquity from Kraus et al. (2020) and dynamical masses from Nowak et al. (2020). Note that, in general, the uncertainties in model-inferred masses (which apply to most systems in this figure) can be very large and typically range from a few M Jup to tens of M Jup. Bottom: same as the upper panel but for orbital separation. With the exception of HD 984 B, which is likely (though not definitively) misaligned, all companions within 20 au are consistent with spin–orbit alignment.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Top: Δi distributions for our observed sample of substellar companions (left) compared with one synthetic realization for an isotropic stellar inclination distribution (middle left), perfect spin–orbit alignment (middle right), and a random mixture of synthetic isotropic and aligned distributions in equal proportions (right). The observed sample is qualitatively most similar to the isotropic or mixture cases, but differs substantially from a purely aligned scenario. Bottom: reconstructed underlying distributions for each sample using hierarchical Bayesian modeling. Here the flexible Lambert generalized bimodal (LGB) distribution is used for our population-level model, and constraints on hyperparameter posteriors are listed in each panel. The population-level distribution for the observed sample closely resembles a mixture of isotropic and aligned systems. The thick curve shows the LGB distribution using median hyperparameter values, while thin curves show 30 draws from the MCMC chains. Note that the scale has been adjusted in the aligned panel (middle right).
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Example of parameterized Bayesian priors for orbital inclinations that take into account the inclination discovery bias caused by the presence of a hard IWA in high-contrast imaging data sets (Equations (14) and (15)). Note that for separations very close to the IWA, the expected orbital inclination prior deviates substantially from a traditional isotropic (﹩\sin {i}_{o}﹩) distribution. For circular orbits, this can resemble a uniform distribution. These modified isotropic distributions are unnormalized approximations to the results in Figure 15 and depend on the angular semimajor axis α and orbital eccentricity. Because long-period giant planets and brown dwarf companions have distinct eccentricity distributions (Bowler et al. 2020a; Nagpal et al. 2023), a different choice for the characteristic eccentricity might be warranted depending on the properties of a newly imaged companion—for instance, e = 0.0 for planets and e = 0.5 for brown dwarfs.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Line-of-sight stellar inclinations (i *, orange) compared with the orbital inclinations of substellar companions (i  o , blue). See Figure 9 caption for details. The bottom-right panel depicts the orientation of the z-axis, pointing toward the observer, and the x–y sky plane.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Assessing biases in orbital inclinations for direct imaging surveys. The sensitivity to faint substellar companions on various orbital inclinations depends on orbital eccentricity and the ratio of the angular semimajor axis, α, and the inner working angle (IWA), which establishes whether a companion is detected or obscured (by a circular coronagraph, for example). Imaging is more sensitive to companions with low inclinations, wider orbits (higher values of α/IWA), and higher eccentricities. These trends are corrected for isotropic orbital viewing geometry in Figure 15.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Distribution of orbital inclination MAP values for the 21 substellar companions with obliquity constraints examined in this study. Compared to an isotropic inclination distribution (gray), the observed sample has a deficit of objects with edge-on orientations between ≈50° and 90°. This closely resembles predictions in Figure 15, which take into account inclination discovery bias in direct imaging surveys caused by a hard IWA.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Posterior distributions for ﹩\cos {i}_{* }﹩ and i * for the same examples from Masuda & Winn (2020) using our Equations (A11) and (A12). Shaded regions correspond to 68.3% and 95.4% credible intervals.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Normalized TESS light curves and Generalized Lomb–Scargle periodograms for 1RXS J0342+1216, 2MASS J01033563–5515561, 2MASS J01225093–2439505, 2MASS J02155892–0929121, 2MASS J02192210–3925225, and 2MASS J04372171+2651014. For each light curve, the strongest periodogram peak is marked with a dotted vertical line. Phased light curves are shown in the right panel with median binned phases denoted by cyan circles.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: TESS light curves and periodograms for TYC 8984-2245-1, TYC 8998-760-1, UCAC4 070-020389, VHS J125601.92–125723.9 AB, and Wolf 1130.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Same as Figure 18 but for examples of upper limits on ﹩v\sin {i}_{* }﹩ from Masuda & Winn (2020) using our Equations (A16) and (A17). Shaded regions correspond to 68.3% and 95.4% credible intervals.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: TESS light curves and periodograms for ksi UMa, L 34-26, LP 261-75 (Sectors 21 and 48), LP 261-75 (Sector 21), LP 261-75 (Sector 48), and LP 903-20.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: TESS light curves and periodograms for PDS 70, PM J02133+3648, PZ Tel, Ross 458 AB, SDSS J130432.93+090713.7, and TWA 5 Aab.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: TESS light curves and periodograms for AB Pic, ASAS J212528–8138.5, BD+21 2486 AB, CD–35 2722, FU Tau, and FW Tau.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: TESS light curves and periodograms for G 196-3, G 203-50, GJ 504, GJ 3305 AB, GSC 00568-01752, and GSC 08047-00232.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: TESS light curves and periodograms for GU Psc, HD 116402, HD 129683, HD 130948, HD 16270, and HD 203030.
Paper: Rotation Periods, Inclinations, and Obliquities of Cool Stars Hosting Directly Imaged Substellar Companions: Spin–Orbit Misalignments Are Common
Authors: Brendan P. Bowler, Quang H. Tran, Zhoujian Zhang, Marvin Morgan, Katelyn B. Ashok, Sarah Blunt, Marta L. Bryan, Analis E. Evans, Kyle Franson, Daniel Huber, Vighnesh Nagpal, Ya-Lin Wu, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: TESS light curves periodograms for HD 37216, HD 49197, HD 65486, HD 8291, HD 97334, and HD 984.
Paper: The SSA22 H I Tomography Survey (SSA22-HIT). I. Data Set and Compiled Redshift Catalog
Authors: Ken Mawatari, Akio K. Inoue, Toru Yamada, Tomoki Hayashino, J. Xavier Prochaska, Khee-Gan Lee, Nicolas Tejos, Nobunari Kashikawa, Takuya Otsuka, Satoshi Yamanaka, David J. Schlegel, Yuichi Matsuda, Joseph F. Hennawi, Ikuru Iwata, Hideki Umehata, Shiro Mukae, Masami Ouchi, Yuma Sugahara, Yoichi Tamura
Figure caption: Comparison of the covered area and the surface number density of objects at z > 2 in the SSA22-Sb1 compiled catalog with other published redshift catalogs available in the major high-z survey fields (see the text). Red filled/open stars correspond to the SSA22-Sb1 compiled catalog including/excluding PC galaxies at 3.05 ≤ z ≤ 3.12. Differences in the symbol colors represent the differences in the fields: blue, green, magenta, violet, and yellow symbols for COSMOS, UDS, GOODS-S, GOODS-N, and EGS fields, respectively. Different symbol types represent surveys/projects from which the catalogs are constructed: crosses, open inverted triangles, open triangles, pentagons, circles, squares, right-pointing triangles, and diamonds correspond to 3D-HST (Momcheva et al. 2016), zCOSMOS (Lilly et al. 2007; Mignoli et al. 2019), VUDS (Le Fèvre et al. 2015), UDSz (Bradshaw et al. 2013; McLure et al. 2013), VANDELS (Garilli et al. 2021), CLAMATO (Lee et al. 2018), ESOcomp (Popesso et al. 2009; Baldassare et al. 2015), and A15comp (Smail et al. 2008; Simpson et al. 2012; Akiyama et al. 2015), respectively. The solid, dashed and dotted–dashed lines correspond to the total number of objects at z > 2 equal to 100, 1,000, and 10,000, respectively.
Paper: The SSA22 H I Tomography Survey (SSA22-HIT). I. Data Set and Compiled Redshift Catalog
Authors: Ken Mawatari, Akio K. Inoue, Toru Yamada, Tomoki Hayashino, J. Xavier Prochaska, Khee-Gan Lee, Nicolas Tejos, Nobunari Kashikawa, Takuya Otsuka, Satoshi Yamanaka, David J. Schlegel, Yuichi Matsuda, Joseph F. Hennawi, Ikuru Iwata, Hideki Umehata, Shiro Mukae, Masami Ouchi, Yuma Sugahara, Yoichi Tamura
Figure caption: Comparison of the surface number density per Δz = 0.1 of objects in the SSA22-Sb1 compiled catalog with other published redshift catalogs available in the major high-z survey fields (see the text). The red solid, blue dashed, blue solid, green thick, green thin, and magenta solid histograms correspond to the redshift distribution of the SSA22 compilation (this work), zCOSMOS (Lilly et al. 2007; Mignoli et al. 2019), CLAMATO (Lee et al. 2018), A15comp (Smail et al. 2008; Simpson et al. 2012; Akiyama et al. 2015), UDSz (Bradshaw et al. 2013; McLure et al. 2013), and ESOcomp (Popesso et al. 2009; Baldassare et al. 2015), respectively. For the 3D-HST catalog, data from the five fields were plotted together using the black bold histogram. Green and magenta dashed histograms are obtained from VANDELS (Garilli et al. 2021) but in UDS and GOODS-S, respectively.
Paper: The SSA22 H I Tomography Survey (SSA22-HIT). I. Data Set and Compiled Redshift Catalog
Authors: Ken Mawatari, Akio K. Inoue, Toru Yamada, Tomoki Hayashino, J. Xavier Prochaska, Khee-Gan Lee, Nicolas Tejos, Nobunari Kashikawa, Takuya Otsuka, Satoshi Yamanaka, David J. Schlegel, Yuichi Matsuda, Joseph F. Hennawi, Ikuru Iwata, Hideki Umehata, Shiro Mukae, Masami Ouchi, Yuma Sugahara, Yoichi Tamura
Figure caption: Redshift distribution of the objects spectroscopically identified in the SSA22-Sb1 field. In the left panel, the objects are separated by their references (see the text and Table 4): the SSA22-HIT sample in magenta, archival sample (VIMOS06, VIMOS12, DEIMOS08, and oIMACS) in yellow, and other published samples in gray. In the right panel, the objects are separated by their object type: LBGs in red, LAEs/LABs in blue, IR-selected galaxies (Kdet, DRG, HERO, M24, SMG, and OFRG) in green, AGNs in light-pink, and the others in gray. For display purposes, the vertical axis value is limited to 140; however, it hides ∼250 objects at z ≈ 3.1. We then embedded small subpanels showing finely binned histograms around z = 3.1.
Paper: The SSA22 H I Tomography Survey (SSA22-HIT). I. Data Set and Compiled Redshift Catalog
Authors: Ken Mawatari, Akio K. Inoue, Toru Yamada, Tomoki Hayashino, J. Xavier Prochaska, Khee-Gan Lee, Nicolas Tejos, Nobunari Kashikawa, Takuya Otsuka, Satoshi Yamanaka, David J. Schlegel, Yuichi Matsuda, Joseph F. Hennawi, Ikuru Iwata, Hideki Umehata, Shiro Mukae, Masami Ouchi, Yuma Sugahara, Yoichi Tamura
Figure caption: Sky distribution of objects with spectroscopically confirmed redshifts in the SSA22-Sb1 field. The symbol difference corresponds to the references (see the text and Table 4). Redshifts are expressed by the following symbols: z < 2.5 in light yellow, 2.5 ≤ z < 3.2 in cyan, 3.05 ≤ z ≤ 3.12 in blue, 3.2 ≤ z < 3.7 in green, and z ≥ 3.7 in red. The background contours show the z = 3.1 LAE number density, which are the same as those in Figure 3.
Paper: The SSA22 H I Tomography Survey (SSA22-HIT). I. Data Set and Compiled Redshift Catalog
Authors: Ken Mawatari, Akio K. Inoue, Toru Yamada, Tomoki Hayashino, J. Xavier Prochaska, Khee-Gan Lee, Nicolas Tejos, Nobunari Kashikawa, Takuya Otsuka, Satoshi Yamanaka, David J. Schlegel, Yuichi Matsuda, Joseph F. Hennawi, Ikuru Iwata, Hideki Umehata, Shiro Mukae, Masami Ouchi, Yuma Sugahara, Yoichi Tamura
Figure caption: DA-S/N distributions for the original (gray filled histogram) and smoothed (red open histogram) SSA22-HIT spectra. In both cases, the QSO (ID 06090) is not shown because its DA-S/N is higher than 10. Objects with negative DA-S/N are counted in the smallest DA-S/N bin. The vertical dashed line corresponds to DA-S/N = 1.5 that is the threshold for the usage in H I tomography.
Paper: The SSA22 H I Tomography Survey (SSA22-HIT). I. Data Set and Compiled Redshift Catalog
Authors: Ken Mawatari, Akio K. Inoue, Toru Yamada, Tomoki Hayashino, J. Xavier Prochaska, Khee-Gan Lee, Nicolas Tejos, Nobunari Kashikawa, Takuya Otsuka, Satoshi Yamanaka, David J. Schlegel, Yuichi Matsuda, Joseph F. Hennawi, Ikuru Iwata, Hideki Umehata, Shiro Mukae, Masami Ouchi, Yuma Sugahara, Yoichi Tamura
Figure caption: Variation of the available background objects (light blue histograms) and the mean separation in cMpc units (orange histograms) as a function of Lyα absorption redshift. The solid histograms are for the smoothed SSA22-HIT sample alone while the dashed histograms are for the combined sample of SSA22-HIT, VIMOS06, and VIMOS08.
Paper: The SSA22 H I Tomography Survey (SSA22-HIT). I. Data Set and Compiled Redshift Catalog
Authors: Ken Mawatari, Akio K. Inoue, Toru Yamada, Tomoki Hayashino, J. Xavier Prochaska, Khee-Gan Lee, Nicolas Tejos, Nobunari Kashikawa, Takuya Otsuka, Satoshi Yamanaka, David J. Schlegel, Yuichi Matsuda, Joseph F. Hennawi, Ikuru Iwata, Hideki Umehata, Shiro Mukae, Masami Ouchi, Yuma Sugahara, Yoichi Tamura
Figure caption: DA-S/N distributions for the smoothed SSA22-HIT spectra divided by the DEIMOS mask. The vertical dashed line corresponds to DA-S/N = 1.5. The number embedded in each panel indicates the fraction of the objects with DA-S/N >1.5 among ones whose DA ranges are available.
Paper: The SSA22 H I Tomography Survey (SSA22-HIT). I. Data Set and Compiled Redshift Catalog
Authors: Ken Mawatari, Akio K. Inoue, Toru Yamada, Tomoki Hayashino, J. Xavier Prochaska, Khee-Gan Lee, Nicolas Tejos, Nobunari Kashikawa, Takuya Otsuka, Satoshi Yamanaka, David J. Schlegel, Yuichi Matsuda, Joseph F. Hennawi, Ikuru Iwata, Hideki Umehata, Shiro Mukae, Masami Ouchi, Yuma Sugahara, Yoichi Tamura
Figure caption: Same as Figure 14 but the smoothed SSA22-HIT spectra are divided by the redshift quality flag. For visibility, the number range is set differently for each panel.
Paper: A Catalog of Distance Determinations for the LAMOST DR8 K Giants in the Galactic Halo
Authors: Lan Zhang, Xiang-Xiang Xue, Chengqun Yang, Feilu Wang, Hans-Walter Rix, Gang Zhao, Chao Liu
Figure caption: Distance comparison for 795 common stars between the present catalog and the one in X14. The peak values, and ﹩{ \mathcal D }{ \mathcal M }﹩ at 50% of ﹩{\mathscr{L}}({ \mathcal D }{ \mathcal M })﹩ are shown in the left and right panels, respectively. Diagonals and values of ﹩{{\rm{\Delta }}}_{{ \mathcal D }{ \mathcal M }}=0.﹩ are shown in red dashed lines. Note that ﹩{{\rm{\Delta }}}_{{ \mathcal D }{ \mathcal M }}={ \mathcal D }{{ \mathcal M }}_{{\rm{X}}14}-{ \mathcal D }{{ \mathcal M }}_{\mathrm{LAMOST}}﹩ for both of the lower panels.
Paper: A Catalog of Distance Determinations for the LAMOST DR8 K Giants in the Galactic Halo
Authors: Lan Zhang, Xiang-Xiang Xue, Chengqun Yang, Feilu Wang, Hans-Walter Rix, Gang Zhao, Chao Liu
Figure caption: The errors of the absolute magnitude of r-band ﹩{\sigma }_{{M}_{r}}﹩ as a function of M  r  and (g − r)0. Black contours are the density distribution of M  r –(g − r)0 plane.
Paper: A Catalog of Distance Determinations for the LAMOST DR8 K Giants in the Galactic Halo
Authors: Lan Zhang, Xiang-Xiang Xue, Chengqun Yang, Feilu Wang, Hans-Walter Rix, Gang Zhao, Chao Liu
Figure caption: Apparent magnitude difference between PS1 and SDSS as functions of PS1 color (g − i)PS1 for the mag of g and r. Density distributions in Δ–color spaces are shown. Red dashed lines represent the best fit to the data.
Paper: A Catalog of Distance Determinations for the LAMOST DR8 K Giants in the Galactic Halo
Authors: Lan Zhang, Xiang-Xiang Xue, Chengqun Yang, Feilu Wang, Hans-Walter Rix, Gang Zhao, Chao Liu
Figure caption: Typical ﹩{\mathscr{L}}({ \mathcal D }{ \mathcal M })﹩ for stars with different [Fe/H] and M  r . In each plot, the black thick line represents the most likely ﹩{ \mathcal D }{ \mathcal M }﹩. The red dashed line and the shade indicate the median value and 68% interval, respectively.
Paper: A Catalog of Distance Determinations for the LAMOST DR8 K Giants in the Galactic Halo
Authors: Lan Zhang, Xiang-Xiang Xue, Chengqun Yang, Feilu Wang, Hans-Walter Rix, Gang Zhao, Chao Liu
Figure caption: Distance results for 19,544 halo K giants. The density distribution maps of the absolute magnitudes in the r-band, ﹩{ \mathcal D }{ \mathcal M }﹩, and distance vs. their corresponding uncertainties are presented from upper to bottom panels, respectively.