adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: A Comprehensive Comparison of Various Galactic Cosmic-Ray Models to the State-of-the-art Particle and Radiation Measurements
Authors: Weihao Liu, Jingnan Guo, Yubao Wang, Tony C. Slaba
Figure caption: The deep space dose rate calculated by various models and observed by the CRaTER D1 and D2 detectors. (a) Inputs of these GCR models: monthly sunspot number from the SILSO World Data Center (2006–2022) used in the BON20, HelMod, and SDEMMA models (in cyan), with error bars indicating deviations among multiple observations within a given month, the solar modulation potential Φ in the BON20 model (in pink), and the Oulu NMCRs employed in the DLR model (C Oulu, in purple). (b) Absorbed dose rate in deep space (D), with a solid angle of 4π sr, derived from the CRaTER D1 and D2 measurements (with SEP events removed) using Equation (18) and simulated by models: light-green shaded area represents the hourly dose rate, while the green line is for the monthly averaged dose rate, accompanied by an error bar indicating the contribution of secondary lunar albedo particles radiation (f ↑) ranging from 8.6% to 19.9%. The green dots in between are derived when considering the albedo ratio as the median value, 14.25%. The yellow, purple, magenta, and orange lines correspond to the monthly dose rate computed by the SDEMMA, DLR, BON20, and HelMod models, respectively. The red scattered points with an error bar for 1 yr time span are the yearly dose rate computed by the CRÈME model. Three arrows are included to indicate the selected epochs for subsequent analysis. (c) Relative difference between the dose rate calculated by models and measured by the CRaTER D1 and D2 detectors. A green dotted line represents no error compared to the green dots in panel (b), with a light-green shaded area (∼±6%) for the variation of f ↑ ∈ [0.086, 0.199]. The legend from panel (b) remains the same here. The corresponding mean value of the relative difference over the entire span for each model is marked on the right side.
Paper: A Comprehensive Comparison of Various Galactic Cosmic-Ray Models to the State-of-the-art Particle and Radiation Measurements
Authors: Weihao Liu, Jingnan Guo, Yubao Wang, Tony C. Slaba
Figure caption: The deep space dose rate for elements with the atomic number ranging from 1 to 26 is computed by various GCR models at three representative epochs: (a) 2010 January for solar minimum between SC 23 and 24, (b) 2014 February for solar maximum of SC 24, and (c) 2019 October for solar minimum between SC 24 and 25. In each panel and for each element written in its abbreviation symbol, the deep space dose rate (D Model) calculated by the DLR, BON20, SDEMMA, HelMod, and CRÈME models is denoted by purple, magenta, yellow, orange, and red bars, respectively. Note that the dose rate is plotted in log scale because of the large-scale differences. The standard deviation (﹩{\sigma }_{{D}_{\mathrm{Model}}}﹩) of different model predictions is depicted as green triangles, and the relative standard deviation, defined as the standard deviation divided by the mean value of the five model outputs (﹩{\sigma }_{{D}_{\mathrm{Model}}}/{\bar{D}}_{\mathrm{Model}}﹩), is plotted as blue squares. The size of the scattered points is positively correlated with the value.
Paper: A Comprehensive Comparison of Various Galactic Cosmic-Ray Models to the State-of-the-art Particle and Radiation Measurements
Authors: Weihao Liu, Jingnan Guo, Yubao Wang, Tony C. Slaba
Figure caption: The LIS used in the ISO 15390 (dotted lines), BON20 (dashed lines), HelMod (solid lines), and SDEMMA (dashed–dotted line, only for protons) models, as well as observed by Voyager 1 during 2012/342–2015/181 as reported in Cummings et al. (2016; triangular scattered points with error bars) and measured by AMS-02 from 2011 May to 2018 May with rigidities greater than 100 GV from Aguilar et al. (2021b; scattered circles with error bars) for two types of GCR particles: (a)/(b) protons and (c)/(d) helium ions. Panels (a) and (c) show the spectra, while (b) and (d) depict the relative difference of the LIS adopted in HelMod compared to the observational data of Voyager 1, where the error bars are the combinations of systematic and statistical errors. The CRÈME and DLR models adopt the ISO 15390 LIS, and the SDEMMA model adopts the same LIS as in HelMod except for protons. In panels (a) and (c), the dark cyan lines represent the particle flux aligned to the left y-axis, while the orange lines correspond to the particle flux multiplied by E 2.7 to the right; for the latter of which, pay attention to their magnitude is with a factor of 108. The purple and pink shaded areas cover the low-energy (101 ≤ E ≤ 104  MeV nuc−1) and high-energy (104 < E ≤ 106  MeV nuc−1) ranges, respectively. The corresponding ﹩{\chi }_{\nu }^{2}﹩ values for the various models in these two energy ranges, as well as the overall range, are listed in each panel in purple, pink, and black, respectively.
Paper: A Comprehensive Comparison of Various Galactic Cosmic-Ray Models to the State-of-the-art Particle and Radiation Measurements
Authors: Weihao Liu, Jingnan Guo, Yubao Wang, Tony C. Slaba
Figure caption: Comparison of the modeled (D Model, on the y-axes) and measured (D Meas, on the x-axes) deep space dose rate for (a) CRÈME, in red; (b) DLR, in purple; (c) BON20, in magenta; (d) HelMod, in orange; (e) SDEMMA, in yellow. In each panel, the dose rate output from the model has been correlated with the D1 and D2 measurements on CRaTER during the time when both data are available: from 2009 to 2022 for CRÈME, DLR, BON20, and HelMod, and to 2019 for SDEMMA. The data points in each panel are connected following the time evolution, with horizontal error bars for the factor of f ↑ ∈ [0.086, 0.199], corresponding to the error bars in CRaTER measurements in Figure 3(b). For each model, their outputs are linearly fitted to the measurements by the blue line, and the 95% confidence is shown in the shaded blue area. The Pearson correlation coefficient (Pearson 1895) and the fitting formula are shown in each panel, also with a gray line in diagonal denoting D Model = D Meas as a reference.
Paper: A Comprehensive Comparison of Various Galactic Cosmic-Ray Models to the State-of-the-art Particle and Radiation Measurements
Authors: Weihao Liu, Jingnan Guo, Yubao Wang, Tony C. Slaba
Figure caption: Flowchart of this work: Five GCR Models are investigated (Section 2.1), each of which takes the LIS and/or SSN, NMCR as input parameters and provides the particle flux in deep space at 1 au. For each model, a silicon phantom is then applied to simulate the corresponding deep space dose rate, and the predictions are compared to measurements by the D1 and D2 detectors of CRaTER in Section 3, giving the relative difference (RD). With the examination of the elemental contribution to the absorbed dose at three typical epochs, the simulation also implies the most varying or dominating species, whose particle flux is then analyzed by comparing with the ACE/CRIS data at low energies, as well as the PAMELA and AMS-02 data at high energies in Section 4. The corresponding absolute relative difference (﹩\left|{RD}\right|﹩) and reduced chi-squared value (﹩{\chi }_{\nu }^{2}﹩) are given via the statistical analysis.
Paper: A Comprehensive Comparison of Various Galactic Cosmic-Ray Models to the State-of-the-art Particle and Radiation Measurements
Authors: Weihao Liu, Jingnan Guo, Yubao Wang, Tony C. Slaba
Figure caption: Sketch for typical structures of the Sun (sunspot, flare, and CME), solar wind, interplanetary shocks induced by CMEs, major sources of energetic particles in the heliosphere (GCRs, SEPs, and ACRs), and typical on-ground and in-orbit measurements involved in this work, all of which are depicted in different colors.
Paper: A Multibranch Deep Neural Network for the Superresolution of Solar Magnetograms
Authors: Fengping Dou, Long Xu, Dong Zhao, Zhixiang Ren
Figure caption: An example of key feature points of the HMI and MDI magnetograms.
Paper: A Multibranch Deep Neural Network for the Superresolution of Solar Magnetograms
Authors: Fengping Dou, Long Xu, Dong Zhao, Zhixiang Ren
Figure caption: An example illustrating magnetic field patches of different complexity.
Paper: A Multibranch Deep Neural Network for the Superresolution of Solar Magnetograms
Authors: Fengping Dou, Long Xu, Dong Zhao, Zhixiang Ren
Figure caption: 2D histograms of our MBSR method, HighRes-Net method, SPSR-GAN method, and the bicubic method on the testing data set with a range of −500 to 500 G. x and y axes represent the magnetic flux of the generated and target. The straight line in red represents y = x, while the dotted straight lines give the best linear fitting between x and y.
Paper: A Multibranch Deep Neural Network for the Superresolution of Solar Magnetograms
Authors: Fengping Dou, Long Xu, Dong Zhao, Zhixiang Ren
Figure caption: 2D histograms of our MBSR, SPSR-O(64C-23b), SPSR-O(64C), SPSR-O(56C), SPSR-O(48C), and SPSR-O(32C) methods on the testing data set with a range of −500 to 500 G. x and y axes represent target and reconstructed magnetic flux, respectively. The straight line in red represents y = x, while the dotted straight lines give the best linear fitting between x and y.
Paper: A Multibranch Deep Neural Network for the Superresolution of Solar Magnetograms
Authors: Fengping Dou, Long Xu, Dong Zhao, Zhixiang Ren
Figure caption: Horizontal and vertical cut plots of a whole magnetogram compared among the bicubic, HighRes-Net, MBSR, and SPSR-GAN methods (The top row shows the horizontal cut plot, representing the edge of upper and lower patches; the bottom row shows the vertical cut plot, representing the edge of left and right patches).
Paper: A Multibranch Deep Neural Network for the Superresolution of Solar Magnetograms
Authors: Fengping Dou, Long Xu, Dong Zhao, Zhixiang Ren
Figure caption: Comparisons of generated magnetograms among the MBSR model, SPSR-GAN model, HighRes-Net model, and the bicubic method.
Paper: A Multibranch Deep Neural Network for the Superresolution of Solar Magnetograms
Authors: Fengping Dou, Long Xu, Dong Zhao, Zhixiang Ren
Figure caption: Visual comparisons of generated magnetograms among the input, target, MBSR model, SPSR-O (64C-23block), SPSR-O (64C), SPSR-O (56C), SPSR-O (48C), and SPSR-O (32C); the second and third column are zoomed-in patches.
Paper: A Multibranch Deep Neural Network for the Superresolution of Solar Magnetograms
Authors: Fengping Dou, Long Xu, Dong Zhao, Zhixiang Ren
Figure caption: Difference map between the reconstructed and observed magnetograms.
Paper: A Multibranch Deep Neural Network for the Superresolution of Solar Magnetograms
Authors: Fengping Dou, Long Xu, Dong Zhao, Zhixiang Ren
Figure caption: Distribution of TUMF of each sample over the training set.
Paper: A Multibranch Deep Neural Network for the Superresolution of Solar Magnetograms
Authors: Fengping Dou, Long Xu, Dong Zhao, Zhixiang Ren
Figure caption: Architecture of the MBSR model.
Paper: A Multibranch Deep Neural Network for the Superresolution of Solar Magnetograms
Authors: Fengping Dou, Long Xu, Dong Zhao, Zhixiang Ren
Figure caption: Plot of the difference between the HR and SR magnetograms
Paper: The Measurement of Masses of OB-type Stars from LAMOST DR5
Authors: Zhenyan Huo, Zhicun Liu, Wenyuan Cui, Chao Liu, Jiaming Liu, Mingxu Sun, Shuai Feng, Linlin Li
Figure caption: Predicting the posterior distribution of mass. The contours from inside to outside enclose 68%, 95%, and 99% of the total probability in three nondiagonal panels. The three vertical dashed lines in the four diagonal panels with histograms represent the lower, median, and upper errors of the distribution at the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles, respectively.
Paper: The Measurement of Masses of OB-type Stars from LAMOST DR5
Authors: Zhenyan Huo, Zhicun Liu, Wenyuan Cui, Chao Liu, Jiaming Liu, Mingxu Sun, Shuai Feng, Linlin Li
Figure caption: The distribution of M–L at different metallicities; the different colored solid lines show the ZAMS line of PARSEC at each metal abundance. The dots mark the sample of normal B-type stars selected from the LAMOST Low-Resolution Survey. The sample included 2825 B-type stars.
Paper: A Comprehensive Comparison of Various Galactic Cosmic-Ray Models to the State-of-the-art Particle and Radiation Measurements
Authors: Weihao Liu, Jingnan Guo, Yubao Wang, Tony C. Slaba
Figure caption: Comparison of the GCR boron flux between various models and measurements as described in Figure 10.
Paper: A Comprehensive Comparison of Various Galactic Cosmic-Ray Models to the State-of-the-art Particle and Radiation Measurements
Authors: Weihao Liu, Jingnan Guo, Yubao Wang, Tony C. Slaba
Figure caption: Comparison of the GCR lithium flux between AMS-02 measurements (blue scattered points with systematic errors) and models: the purple, magenta, yellow, orange, and red curves denote the lithium flux multiplied by E 2.7 in DLR, BON20, SDEMMA, HelMod, and CRÈME, respectively.
Paper: A Comprehensive Comparison of Various Galactic Cosmic-Ray Models to the State-of-the-art Particle and Radiation Measurements
Authors: Weihao Liu, Jingnan Guo, Yubao Wang, Tony C. Slaba
Figure caption: Comparison of the GCR beryllium flux between AMS-02 measurements and models as described in Figure 16.
Paper: Observational Properties of 155 β Cephei Pulsating Variable Stars
Authors: Xiang-dong Shi, Sheng-bang Qian, Li-ying Zhu, Lin-jia Li, Er-gang Zhao, Wen-xu Lin
Figure caption: The luminosity and the dominant pulsating-period relation diagram of these BCEP stars. Symbols are similar to those in Figure 3. The red dashed line and the black solid line represent the relationship derived by Paper I for BCEP and SPB stars, respectively. The red solid line represents the new relation derived in this paper.
Paper: Observational Properties of 155 β Cephei Pulsating Variable Stars
Authors: Xiang-dong Shi, Sheng-bang Qian, Li-ying Zhu, Lin-jia Li, Er-gang Zhao, Wen-xu Lin
Figure caption: Fourier spectra of 83 stars first confirmed as BCEP stars.
Paper: Giant Outer Transiting Exoplanet Mass (GOT ‘EM) Survey. IV. Long-term Doppler Spectroscopy for 11 Stars Thought to Host Cool Giant Exoplanets
Authors: Paul A. Dalba, Stephen R. Kane, Howard Isaacson, Benjamin Fulton, Andrew W. Howard, Edward W. Schwieterman, Daniel P. Thorngren, Jonathan Fortney, Noah Vowell, Corey Beard, Sarah Blunt, Casey L. Brinkman, Ashley Chontos, Fei Dai, Steven Giacalone, Michelle L. Hill, Molly Kosiarek, Jack Lubin, Andrew W. Mayo, Teo Močnik, Joseph M. Akana Murphy, Erik A. Petigura, Malena Rice, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Judah Van Zandt, Lauren M. Weiss, Diana Dragomir, David Kipping, Matthew J. Payne, Arpita Roy, Alex Teachey, Steven Villanueva
Figure caption: RV measurements vs. S HK activity indicators for all of the Kepler targets. The blue dashed line is a linear regression between these parameters that is described by the correlation coefficient (r) and the p-value displayed in each panel. None of the systems show significant correlation between RV and stellar activity.
Paper: Giant Outer Transiting Exoplanet Mass (GOT ‘EM) Survey. IV. Long-term Doppler Spectroscopy for 11 Stars Thought to Host Cool Giant Exoplanets
Authors: Paul A. Dalba, Stephen R. Kane, Howard Isaacson, Benjamin Fulton, Andrew W. Howard, Edward W. Schwieterman, Daniel P. Thorngren, Jonathan Fortney, Noah Vowell, Corey Beard, Sarah Blunt, Casey L. Brinkman, Ashley Chontos, Fei Dai, Steven Giacalone, Michelle L. Hill, Molly Kosiarek, Jack Lubin, Andrew W. Mayo, Teo Močnik, Joseph M. Akana Murphy, Erik A. Petigura, Malena Rice, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Judah Van Zandt, Lauren M. Weiss, Diana Dragomir, David Kipping, Matthew J. Payne, Arpita Roy, Alex Teachey, Steven Villanueva
Figure caption: Transits and model of Kepler-111 c, including both short and long cadence Kepler data. Each transit is shown to demonstrate the convergence of the TTV model. In the lower right column, all data have been folded on the maximum likelihood transit ephemeris.
Paper: Giant Outer Transiting Exoplanet Mass (GOT ‘EM) Survey. IV. Long-term Doppler Spectroscopy for 11 Stars Thought to Host Cool Giant Exoplanets
Authors: Paul A. Dalba, Stephen R. Kane, Howard Isaacson, Benjamin Fulton, Andrew W. Howard, Edward W. Schwieterman, Daniel P. Thorngren, Jonathan Fortney, Noah Vowell, Corey Beard, Sarah Blunt, Casey L. Brinkman, Ashley Chontos, Fei Dai, Steven Giacalone, Michelle L. Hill, Molly Kosiarek, Jack Lubin, Andrew W. Mayo, Teo Močnik, Joseph M. Akana Murphy, Erik A. Petigura, Malena Rice, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Judah Van Zandt, Lauren M. Weiss, Diana Dragomir, David Kipping, Matthew J. Payne, Arpita Roy, Alex Teachey, Steven Villanueva
Figure caption: Transits and models of Kepler-533 b and c folded on the maximum likelihood transit ephemeris of each planet. All of the Kepler photometry is long cadence.
Paper: Giant Outer Transiting Exoplanet Mass (GOT ‘EM) Survey. IV. Long-term Doppler Spectroscopy for 11 Stars Thought to Host Cool Giant Exoplanets
Authors: Paul A. Dalba, Stephen R. Kane, Howard Isaacson, Benjamin Fulton, Andrew W. Howard, Edward W. Schwieterman, Daniel P. Thorngren, Jonathan Fortney, Noah Vowell, Corey Beard, Sarah Blunt, Casey L. Brinkman, Ashley Chontos, Fei Dai, Steven Giacalone, Michelle L. Hill, Molly Kosiarek, Jack Lubin, Andrew W. Mayo, Teo Močnik, Joseph M. Akana Murphy, Erik A. Petigura, Malena Rice, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Judah Van Zandt, Lauren M. Weiss, Diana Dragomir, David Kipping, Matthew J. Payne, Arpita Roy, Alex Teachey, Steven Villanueva
Figure caption: RVs and best-fit model for Kepler-553. Kepler-553 b was included in the fit, but no Keplerian signal was detected.
Paper: Giant Outer Transiting Exoplanet Mass (GOT ‘EM) Survey. IV. Long-term Doppler Spectroscopy for 11 Stars Thought to Host Cool Giant Exoplanets
Authors: Paul A. Dalba, Stephen R. Kane, Howard Isaacson, Benjamin Fulton, Andrew W. Howard, Edward W. Schwieterman, Daniel P. Thorngren, Jonathan Fortney, Noah Vowell, Corey Beard, Sarah Blunt, Casey L. Brinkman, Ashley Chontos, Fei Dai, Steven Giacalone, Michelle L. Hill, Molly Kosiarek, Jack Lubin, Andrew W. Mayo, Teo Močnik, Joseph M. Akana Murphy, Erik A. Petigura, Malena Rice, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Judah Van Zandt, Lauren M. Weiss, Diana Dragomir, David Kipping, Matthew J. Payne, Arpita Roy, Alex Teachey, Steven Villanueva
Figure caption: RVs and best-fit model for Kepler-111.
Paper: Giant Outer Transiting Exoplanet Mass (GOT ‘EM) Survey. IV. Long-term Doppler Spectroscopy for 11 Stars Thought to Host Cool Giant Exoplanets
Authors: Paul A. Dalba, Stephen R. Kane, Howard Isaacson, Benjamin Fulton, Andrew W. Howard, Edward W. Schwieterman, Daniel P. Thorngren, Jonathan Fortney, Noah Vowell, Corey Beard, Sarah Blunt, Casey L. Brinkman, Ashley Chontos, Fei Dai, Steven Giacalone, Michelle L. Hill, Molly Kosiarek, Jack Lubin, Andrew W. Mayo, Teo Močnik, Joseph M. Akana Murphy, Erik A. Petigura, Malena Rice, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Judah Van Zandt, Lauren M. Weiss, Diana Dragomir, David Kipping, Matthew J. Payne, Arpita Roy, Alex Teachey, Steven Villanueva
Figure caption: Transit-timing variations for Kepler-111 c.
Paper: Giant Outer Transiting Exoplanet Mass (GOT ‘EM) Survey. IV. Long-term Doppler Spectroscopy for 11 Stars Thought to Host Cool Giant Exoplanets
Authors: Paul A. Dalba, Stephen R. Kane, Howard Isaacson, Benjamin Fulton, Andrew W. Howard, Edward W. Schwieterman, Daniel P. Thorngren, Jonathan Fortney, Noah Vowell, Corey Beard, Sarah Blunt, Casey L. Brinkman, Ashley Chontos, Fei Dai, Steven Giacalone, Michelle L. Hill, Molly Kosiarek, Jack Lubin, Andrew W. Mayo, Teo Močnik, Joseph M. Akana Murphy, Erik A. Petigura, Malena Rice, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Judah Van Zandt, Lauren M. Weiss, Diana Dragomir, David Kipping, Matthew J. Payne, Arpita Roy, Alex Teachey, Steven Villanueva
Figure caption: RVs and best-fit model for Kepler-952. A unique signal at the ephemeris of the transiting planet is not detected; only an upper limit on planet mass is achieved. The maximum likelihood solution (blue line) has a semiamplitude consistent with 0 m s−1.
Paper: Giant Outer Transiting Exoplanet Mass (GOT ‘EM) Survey. IV. Long-term Doppler Spectroscopy for 11 Stars Thought to Host Cool Giant Exoplanets
Authors: Paul A. Dalba, Stephen R. Kane, Howard Isaacson, Benjamin Fulton, Andrew W. Howard, Edward W. Schwieterman, Daniel P. Thorngren, Jonathan Fortney, Noah Vowell, Corey Beard, Sarah Blunt, Casey L. Brinkman, Ashley Chontos, Fei Dai, Steven Giacalone, Michelle L. Hill, Molly Kosiarek, Jack Lubin, Andrew W. Mayo, Teo Močnik, Joseph M. Akana Murphy, Erik A. Petigura, Malena Rice, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Judah Van Zandt, Lauren M. Weiss, Diana Dragomir, David Kipping, Matthew J. Payne, Arpita Roy, Alex Teachey, Steven Villanueva
Figure caption: RVs and best-fit model for KOI 1431. A unique signal at the ephemeris of the transiting planet is not detected; only an upper limit on planet mass is achieved. The maximum likelihood solution (blue line) of KOI-1431.01 has a semiamplitude consistent with 0 m s−1 (panel (c)). The origin of the long-period signal shown in panel (d) is unknown (see the text).
Paper: Giant Outer Transiting Exoplanet Mass (GOT ‘EM) Survey. IV. Long-term Doppler Spectroscopy for 11 Stars Thought to Host Cool Giant Exoplanets
Authors: Paul A. Dalba, Stephen R. Kane, Howard Isaacson, Benjamin Fulton, Andrew W. Howard, Edward W. Schwieterman, Daniel P. Thorngren, Jonathan Fortney, Noah Vowell, Corey Beard, Sarah Blunt, Casey L. Brinkman, Ashley Chontos, Fei Dai, Steven Giacalone, Michelle L. Hill, Molly Kosiarek, Jack Lubin, Andrew W. Mayo, Teo Močnik, Joseph M. Akana Murphy, Erik A. Petigura, Malena Rice, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Judah Van Zandt, Lauren M. Weiss, Diana Dragomir, David Kipping, Matthew J. Payne, Arpita Roy, Alex Teachey, Steven Villanueva
Figure caption: RVs and best-fit model for Kepler-421. A unique signal at the ephemeris of the transiting planet is not detected; only an upper limit on planet mass is achieved. The maximum likelihood solution (blue line) has a semiamplitude consistent with 0 m s−1.
Paper: Giant Outer Transiting Exoplanet Mass (GOT ‘EM) Survey. IV. Long-term Doppler Spectroscopy for 11 Stars Thought to Host Cool Giant Exoplanets
Authors: Paul A. Dalba, Stephen R. Kane, Howard Isaacson, Benjamin Fulton, Andrew W. Howard, Edward W. Schwieterman, Daniel P. Thorngren, Jonathan Fortney, Noah Vowell, Corey Beard, Sarah Blunt, Casey L. Brinkman, Ashley Chontos, Fei Dai, Steven Giacalone, Michelle L. Hill, Molly Kosiarek, Jack Lubin, Andrew W. Mayo, Teo Močnik, Joseph M. Akana Murphy, Erik A. Petigura, Malena Rice, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Judah Van Zandt, Lauren M. Weiss, Diana Dragomir, David Kipping, Matthew J. Payne, Arpita Roy, Alex Teachey, Steven Villanueva
Figure caption: RVs and best-fit model for Kepler-807. Error bars are displayed for the Keck-HIRES and SOPHIE points, but they are too small relative to the axis range to be clearly seen. This Keplerian signal is caused by a brown dwarf, not a planet. The APOGEE-N and SOPHIE data were adopted from Ehrenreich et al. (2011), Cañas et al. (2023).
Paper: Giant Outer Transiting Exoplanet Mass (GOT ‘EM) Survey. IV. Long-term Doppler Spectroscopy for 11 Stars Thought to Host Cool Giant Exoplanets
Authors: Paul A. Dalba, Stephen R. Kane, Howard Isaacson, Benjamin Fulton, Andrew W. Howard, Edward W. Schwieterman, Daniel P. Thorngren, Jonathan Fortney, Noah Vowell, Corey Beard, Sarah Blunt, Casey L. Brinkman, Ashley Chontos, Fei Dai, Steven Giacalone, Michelle L. Hill, Molly Kosiarek, Jack Lubin, Andrew W. Mayo, Teo Močnik, Joseph M. Akana Murphy, Erik A. Petigura, Malena Rice, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Judah Van Zandt, Lauren M. Weiss, Diana Dragomir, David Kipping, Matthew J. Payne, Arpita Roy, Alex Teachey, Steven Villanueva
Figure caption: Transits and model of Kepler-849 b folded on the maximum likelihood transit ephemeris. All of the Kepler photometry is long cadence.