adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Updated Radiative Transfer Model for Titan in the Near-infrared Wavelength Range: Validation against Huygens Atmospheric and Surface Measurements and Application to the Cassini/VIMS Observations of the Dragonfly Landing Area
Authors: M. Es-sayeh, S. Rodriguez, M. Coutelier, P. Rannou, B. Bézard, L. Maltagliati, T. Cornet, B. Grieger, E. Karkoschka, S. Le Mouélic, A. Le Gall, C. Neish, S. MacKenzie, A. Solomonidou, C. Sotin, A. Coustenis
Figure caption: Retrieved surface albedo corrected for the photometry in the center of the methane windows for the four most prominent spectral units revealed in the RGB map: (a) brown-blue, (b) purple, (c) dark-blue, and (d) yellow-bright units. Each spectrum is the average of a selection of pixels within each unit (841, 289, 324, and 196 pixels, respectively) with 1σ mean arithmetic uncertainties. The 5μ window results from averaging over 15 VIMS spectels from 4.89 to 5.13 μm in order to reduce the noise. For comparison, the results are displayed over the same range of albedo values.
Paper: Updated Radiative Transfer Model for Titan in the Near-infrared Wavelength Range: Validation against Huygens Atmospheric and Surface Measurements and Application to the Cassini/VIMS Observations of the Dragonfly Landing Area
Authors: M. Es-sayeh, S. Rodriguez, M. Coutelier, P. Rannou, B. Bézard, L. Maltagliati, T. Cornet, B. Grieger, E. Karkoschka, S. Le Mouélic, A. Le Gall, C. Neish, S. MacKenzie, A. Solomonidou, C. Sotin, A. Coustenis
Figure caption: Surface albedos retrieved from the VIMS HLS endmember spectrum (see Section 3.1.3) in the atmospheric windows with (a) the RT-IPGP-2022 model (blue) and (b) the RT-IPGP-2016 model (red). The DLIS spectrum (Karkoschka et al. 2012) scaled by a 0.44 factor to take into account the viewing geometry is shown in black in both panels. No error bars are available for the DLIS spectrum. Inverted surface albedos are shown with 2σ error bars.
Paper: Updated Radiative Transfer Model for Titan in the Near-infrared Wavelength Range: Validation against Huygens Atmospheric and Surface Measurements and Application to the Cassini/VIMS Observations of the Dragonfly Landing Area
Authors: M. Es-sayeh, S. Rodriguez, M. Coutelier, P. Rannou, B. Bézard, L. Maltagliati, T. Cornet, B. Grieger, E. Karkoschka, S. Le Mouélic, A. Le Gall, C. Neish, S. MacKenzie, A. Solomonidou, C. Sotin, A. Coustenis
Figure caption: Altitudes where τ = 1 (gray) and τ eff = 1 (black) vs. wavelengths. Red rectangles indicate the VIMS spectels used to invert the haze and mist scaling factors (“haze/mist spectels”) and blue rectangles the VIMS spectels used to invert the surface albedo (“surface spectels”).
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Errors in the zonal gravity harmonics for the n = 1 polytrope at ﹩q\equiv {({{\rm{\Omega }}}^{2}{R}_{\mathrm{eq}}^{3}/{GM})}_{\mathrm{Jup}}=0.089195487﹩, compared to the exact Bessel solution given by Wisdom & Hubbard (2016). Open symbols indicate ToF4 results and filled symbols indicate ToF7 results. ToF4 only yields even coefficients up to J 8. Shaded regions indicate our working resolution of 4096 level surfaces and the corresponding J 2n  errors in ToF7 dictate the variances adopted in the gravity likelihood function L grav (see Equation (8)).
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Left: residuals (model minus data) of the C ring density and bending wave pattern speeds for the best-fitting, rigidly rotating Saturn model. Different Saturn modes are distinguished by their azimuthal wavenumber m (vertical axis) and latitudinal wavenumber ℓ − m (see colors in legend). The solid circles are fully nonperturbative calculations for mode frequency; the open circles highlight modes calculated on the fly and fit to the data during MCMC sampling (see Section 2.6). The error bars on these modes indicate 5%–95% quantiles of their residuals across the sample of rigid models. The systematic offsets seen for this optimized rigid model, most obvious for the sectoral (ℓ − m = 0) modes, betray the influence of Saturn’s deep winds. Right: gravitational moments J 2n  of the rigid model compared to the data. The top panel plots the negative J 2n  as open circles, and positive coefficients as filled circles. The bottom panel plots their absolute residuals with respect to the observed J 2n  (Iess et al. 2019).
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Wind model (left), pattern speed residuals for waves observed at Lindblad or vertical resonances in the C ring (center), gravity harmonics (top right), and residuals (bottom right) for our best-fitting Saturn model. Different modes are distinguished by their azimuthal wavenumber m (vertical axis) and latitudinal wavenumber ℓ − m (see the colors and markers in the legend). The circled modes are the high-degree modes calculated on the fly and fit to data during MCMC sampling, their error bars showing the 5%–95% quantiles of residuals obtained by all models across the sample of tens of thousands.
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Decay depth of the zonal winds as a function of Saturn’s deep spin period. The light blue distribution fits the ring seismology with an exaggerated pattern speed uncertainty of ΔΩ p,i  = 3° day−1 while the dark blue distribution uses ΔΩ p,i  = 0.°3 day−1, slightly larger than the observational uncertainty (see Section 2.2). The plus signs designate the most likely single model from each sample. The histograms are marginalized posterior probability distributions. The faint green distribution in the background ignores the seismology; histograms are omitted for this case. The error bar laid over the histograms (top) gives the earlier M19 estimate for Saturn’s spin period based on rigid models and less data.
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Examples of a few modes’ latitudinal sensitivity to rotation: as in Figure 6, but comparing the Legendre expansion of the cloud-level wind angular frequency with the radial peak amplitude reached by K(r, μ) (Equations (6)–(7)) as a function of planetocentric latitude for each of the three modes (black curves with labels, normalized to unity). The small orange points are the mean measured wind profile from Cassini imaging (García-Melendo et al. 2011) and the solid blue curve is a gravity-optimized profile from Galanti & Kaspi (2021); both are scaled to 635 minute baseline rotation here. Modes with ℓ − m = 0 essentially only sample the prograde equatorial jet; ℓ − m = 2 and 4 are more sensitive to the strongly retrograde regions from 30° to 40° latitude.
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Meridional slices of the first-order Coriolis kernels (left hemispheres; Equation (7)) and the resulting integrands of the first-order frequency shift (right hemispheres; Equation (6)) for the four f-modes with m = 11 and ℓ − m = 0, 2, 4, 6 in our favored Saturn model. The dashed gray boundary marks the centroid of the wind decay function. All four modes are shifted to higher frequency by the prograde equatorial jet, although modes with larger ℓ − m acquire smaller shifts because they sample higher latitudes where they suffer self-cancellation. The color bars are normalized arbitrarily; values of the frequency shift are given in the text. Note that the perturbative treatment of winds in our main calculations captures higher-order rotation effects than the heuristic first-order perturbations shown here.
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Gravity harmonics J  n  (top) and their residuals (bottom) for the best model that strictly satisfies the García-Melendo et al. (2011) cloud-level wind profile, and is fit to J 2 − J 6 and the ring seismology. The dashed and solid vertical lines represent uncertainty in the ToF calculation and the Cassini measurement uncertainty, respectively, (see the legend). The J 2n  are overplotted with plus signs. This model requires shallow (d ≈ 3400 km) winds to fit J 6 even marginally. The poor fit to the odd harmonics, even harmonics J 6+, and seismic constraints (not pictured) all strongly favor a model with somewhat different surface winds (see the text).
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Wind-induced zonal gravity perturbations δ J 2n  calculated assuming thermal–gravitational wind balance for baroclinic rotation laws of the form given in Equation (2), as a function of the assumed deep spin and wind decay depth. These points are for our baseline sample that adopts a modified cloud-level wind (see Section 2.4). The color bars are labeled in parts per million.
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Wind-induced perturbations to f-mode frequencies, calculated from Equation (3), expressed here in terms of the inertial frame frequency σ  i  = ω  i  + δ ω  i . Based on Figure 4 in Dewberry et al. (2022).
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Example profiles of baroclinic differential rotation satisfying Saturn’s observed cloud-level winds (García-Melendo et al. 2011), shown for fast, medium, and slow deep spin ΩS (left, center, and right columns, respectively) and with the wind decay depth set to d/R eq = 0.12. Depending on the deep spin, the winds can range from predominantly retrograde to predominantly prograde.
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Resonance locations predicted for the best model with winds (small filled circles) and for the same model but ignoring winds (small open circles), compared to all observed C ring OLRs (open black circles) and OVRs (open black diamonds) excited by Saturn modes (French et al. 2021 and references therein). The solid lines connect modes with even ℓ − m capable of producing density waves at Lindblad resonances; the dashed lines connect modes with odd ℓ − m capable of producing bending waves at vertical resonances. The shaded region is the D ring where resonances are not readily observable. Rigid and differential rotation are indistinguishable at this scale for the ℓ = m g1 modes and m ≲ 4 modes.
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Even gravity harmonics through J 12 for the three samples indicated in the legend. The open circles are rigid-body components and the filled circles are the total harmonics (rigid plus wind contributions). “Strict winds” refers to the García-Melendo et al. (2011) cloud-level velocity profile; the other two samples assume the Galanti reconstructed profile (see Figure 7 and Section 2.3). The diamonds with plus signs show the best model from each sample. The black crosses show the Iess et al. (2019) 3σ measurement uncertainty and the red crosses show the ToF7 uncertainty (Section 2.1), slightly offset here for readability. For ease of comparison, this figure normalizes harmonics to the conventional reference radius 60,330 km.
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Gravitational coefficient shifts δ J  n  (top) and associated residuals (bottom), computed for the “DR3” differential rotation profile considered by Wisdom & Hubbard (2016; left) and one of the differential rotation profiles from Dewberry et al. (2022; right). Differently colored points show δ J  n  calculated directly from the Euler and Poisson equations (black and blue), and from the TGWE/TWE under various approximations (orange, green, red, and purple).
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: Posterior probability distributions of the model parameters, normalized to equal area, compared among the samples appearing in Figure 11. The gray distribution shows the rigidly rotating sample corresponding to Figure 2; its narrow 2π/ΩS distribution is cut off somewhat for readability of the other distributions. The favored (dark blue) sample is the one represented in Figures 9–12.
Paper: Saturn's Seismic Rotation Revisited
Authors: Christopher R. Mankovich, Janosz W. Dewberry, Jim Fuller
Figure caption: As in Figure 9, but for a sample neglecting the m = 3, 4, 5 constraints. Here the central panel includes vertical resonances (crosses) in addition to Lindblad resonances (circles).
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Three-layer internal structure model of Europa. The induction response is determined by the ice shell thickness (d), ocean thickness (h), and ocean conductivity (σ). Also shown is a schematic of an oscillating driving field ( B   d (t), red, Equation (2)) and the induced magnetic moment ( M   i (t), blue, Equation (3)) generated in response, which points opposite the time-variable field.
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Illustration of metrics used for evaluation of simulated ECM data sets. Green, yellow, and red posterior probability distributions indicate successful, marginal, and failed recoveries of the notional parameter X, respectively. The distributions in both panels are identical, but only one fully passes both tests. Top: comparison of posterior HDI with true value. Successful, marginal, and failed parameter recoveries correspond to truth values lying inside the ≤95%, ≤99.7%, and >99.7% HDIs, respectively. The 99.7% interval is indicated by the horizontal line over the distribution, while the diamonds indicate the bounds of the 95% interval. Bottom: comparison of retrieved posterior with desired measurement accuracy. Probability masses of >68%, >50%, and ≤50% define success, marginal, and failed retrievals, respectively.
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Accuracy of Jovian field model used in retrievals. Shown is a violin plot illustrating the accuracy of models with different numbers of modeled frequencies, n  ω , compared with the high-fidelity model used to generate synthetic data (Section 2.2). Labels along the top axis indicate which frequencies were added to the model. Model residuals, B residual, are calculated for the predicted magnetic field at Europa during Europa Clipper flybys. Shaded regions represent the smoothed distribution of model residuals, while horizontal lines indicate the minimum, maximum, mean, and 16th and 84th percentiles of the residuals. Adding additional frequencies reduces systematic errors and yields smaller means and variances for the residual distribution.
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Components of simulated magnetic ECM data. Shown are simulated ECM data (top), moon−plasma interaction artifacts (middle), and sensor noise (bottom) during a flyby of Europa as a function of time relative to closest approach at 5 s cadence. The B  x , B  y , and B  z  components of each field are shown in blue, orange, and red, respectively. Plasma artifacts are at only 10% of the original moon−plasma interaction field intensity, but they remain a considerable source of systematic error.
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Simulated spectrum of the ambient Jovian magnetic field variation at Europa. Peaks with a magnitude >1 nT are indicated with arrows showing their origin, with red for the synodic period and its harmonics, orange for the orbital motion, and purple for beats between synodic and orbital terms. The peak near 85 hr is bimodal (see Figure 4).
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Simulated spectrum of the ambient magnetic field variation at Europa along each axis of the IAU Europa body-fixed coordinate system, zoomed in to highlight bimodal features in Figure 3. B  d,x  is shown in blue, B  d,y  in orange, and B  d,z  in red. (a) Features near the orbital period caused by apsidal and nodal precession. (b) Bimodal feature near the synodic frequency caused by different modulations of the synodic oscillation.
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Example retrieval of Europan interior for Scenario A with 1D and 2D posterior distributions for the three ocean parameters and parameter pairings. 2D posteriors are illustrated by contours of constant probability density drawn enclosing 5%, 50%, 68%, 95%, and 99.7% of the probability mass. Blue lines and squares indicate the input values. Above each contour plot, a histogram displays the posterior for the ocean parameter on the x-axis. In these plots, the horizontal black line indicates the 99.7% interval, the black diamonds indicate the bounds of the 95% interval, and the blue shaded region indicates the Metric II accuracy interval.
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Baseline performance of Bayesian retrieval of Europan interior for all scenarios. Filled green boxes correspond to successful recovery of a parameter as measured by the indicated metric. Yellow boxes with positively sloped stripes indicate a marginal recovery, and red boxes with negatively sloped stripes indicate a failure. Contours of constant induction response assuming no ice shell (d = 0) are shown at amplitudes of 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, and 95% for the three indicated frequencies and at 98% for the 5.6 and 11.2 hr periods.
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Europan interiors considered in our analysis. For reference, the induction response amplitudes at the three highest-amplitude oscillation frequencies are shown as a function of ocean conductivity and thickness, assuming no ice shell (d = 0 km). Contours are shown at amplitudes of 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, and 95% for all periods and at 98% for the 5.6 and 11.2 hr periods. See Table 2.
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Contours of induction amplitude and phase lag in response to a driving magnetic field at the synodic period (11.2 hr) as a function of ocean conductivity (σ) and thickness (h), after Zimmer et al. (2000). Assumed ice shell thickness is d = 0 km. The amplitude of the synodic driving field is ∼200 nT.
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Example retrieval of Europan interior for Scenario A assuming partial (90%) removal of moon−plasma interaction fields (compare to Figure 10) with 1D and 2D posterior distributions for the three ocean parameters and parameter pairings. 2D posteriors illustrated by contours of constant probability density are drawn enclosing 5%, 50%, 68%, 95%, and 99.7% of the probability mass. Blue lines and squares indicate the input values. Above each contour plot, a histogram displays the posterior for the ocean parameter on the x-axis. In these plots, the horizontal black line indicates the 99.7% interval, the black diamonds indicate the bounds of the 95% interval, and the blue shaded region indicates the Metric II accuracy interval.
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Joint magnetic and gravity inversion for Europa’s ocean. Shown are recovered posterior distributions when using a gravity-derived prior for the hydrosphere thickness, ﹩d+h\sim { \mathcal N }(130,7.5)﹩ as compared to a less informative uniform distribution, ﹩d+h\sim { \mathcal U }(80,170)﹩. A 2D histogram of joint posterior distribution of ocean thickness and conductivity is shown with marginalized 1D histograms on each axis. The posteriors using the uniform and normal priors are shown in black and orange, respectively, with contour lines drawn at the 50th, 95th, and 99.7th percentiles. The blue lines mark the input values for the chosen scenario (A). While both posteriors include the correct value, using the gravity-informed prior provides improved ocean characterization.
Paper: Revealing the Interior Structure of Icy Moons with a Bayesian Approach to Magnetic Induction Measurements
Authors: John B. Biersteker, Benjamin P. Weiss, Corey J. Cochrane, Camilla D. K. Harris, Xianzhe Jia, Krishan K. Khurana, Jiang Liu, Neil Murphy, Carol A. Raymond
Figure caption: Performance of Bayesian retrieval method for all scenarios with incomplete (90%) removal of moon−plasma interaction fields from ECM magnetometry. Filled green boxes correspond to successful recovery of a parameter as measured by the indicated metric. Yellow boxes with positively sloped stripes indicate a marginal recovery, and red boxes with negatively sloped stripes indicate a failure. Contours of constant induction response assuming no ice shell (d = 0) are shown at amplitudes of 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, and 95% for the three indicated frequencies and at 98% for the 5.6 and 11.2 hr periods. Improved or degraded performance grade compared to baseline is indicated with a + or −, respectively. Metric I improves because including moon−plasma interaction fields increases the uncertainty, yielding broader posteriors that more easily encompass the input values.