adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Primordial Orbital Alignment of Sednoids
Authors: Yukun Huang, 宇坤 黄, Brett Gladman
Figure caption: Upper: past evolutions of perihelion longitudes (ϖ) for Sedna (blue), 2012 VP113 (red), and Leleakuhonua (green). Solid lines denote the backward propagation of their nominal orbits without the galactic tide, whereas shaded areas denote ranges of their clone orbits. The only instance where the sednoid apsidal lines all converged was around 4.5 Gyr ago (vertical dashed line), right after the solar system was formed. Leleakuhonua’s primordial ϖ and its range considering the galactic tide are marked by the black and gray triangles, respectively. Lower: the circular standard deviation of the three angles (black) and the statistical confidence (p-value, red shaded) that they are generated from a uniform distribution. There is only a 1 in 20 chance (2σ) that three random angles would cluster at the same level as the sednoids did 4.5 Gyr ago.
Paper: Calcium Bright Knots and the Formation of Chromospheric Anemone Jets on the Sun
Authors: Kunwar Alkendra Pratap Singh, Keisuke Nishida, Kazunari Shibata
Figure caption: (a) The magnetic field structure at t = 1.94 × 103 s obtained from the simulation data. The isosurface of density is shown by gray color. (b) The magnetic field and velocity field are shown at x = 0.028 Mm and t = 1.94 × 103 s. The magnetic field and velocity field, obtained from simulation data, are shown in panel (b) here (i.e., magnetic field and velocity field at t = 1.94 × 103 s and x = 0.028 Mm) and correspond to the box shown in Figure 3(c). The schematic diagrams (c) to (j) show the origin and evolution of the jets; the oblique view (c) to (f) and axial view (g) to (j) are provided in the diagrams. The magnetic flux rope is shown by gray color. The sign “X” in the schematic diagram shows the reconnection point, the flux rope magnetic field is shown in orange color and the ambient magnetic field is shown in green color. At first, Jet1 is formed and magnetic reconnection proceeds further leading to more jets such as Jet2 and so on. In this manner, many small-scale jets would be launched from the entire body of the magnetic flux rope.
Paper: Primordial Orbital Alignment of Sednoids
Authors: Yukun Huang, 宇坤 黄, Brett Gladman
Figure caption: TNO ϖ–q distributions at the end of a 2 M ⊕ rogue planet’s 185 Myr early presence (left) and today (right). The rogue planet’s longitudes of perihelion (ϖ  r ) at the start and at the removal are marked by blue solid and dashed lines, respectively. Upon the rogue’s removal, the differing precession rates due to wide ranges of a and q (red arrows; see also Equation (1)) led to the near homogenization of ϖ, except for q > 120 au TNOs (right of the red dashed line, right panel) where precession periods are comparable to the age of the solar system.
Paper: Measuring Tracers of Planet Formation in the Atmosphere of WASP-77A b: Substellar O/H and C/H Ratios, with a Stellar C/O Ratio and a Potentially Superstellar Ti/H Ratio
Authors: Billy Edwards, Quentin Changeat
Figure caption: Posterior distributions for the dayside of WASP-77A b. For the free chemistry retrievals, the C/O and Ti/O ratios are derived parameters. Where there are two reported values, they are given as those from the combined JWST NIRSpec and HST WFC3 fit (left) and the JWST NIRSpec only (right). Both free and equilibrium chemistry models, as well as fits to both data sets or just JWST NIRSpec, prefer a roughly stellar C/O ratio. The free and equilibrium retrievals to the combined data sets also prefer a distinctly superstellar Ti/O ratio. All elemental-to-hydrogen abundances are given with respect to solar values. Again, C/H and O/H are substellar, whereas Ti/H is superstellar. All ratios and abundances are computed in terms of the volume mixing ratio.
Paper: Measuring Tracers of Planet Formation in the Atmosphere of WASP-77A b: Substellar O/H and C/H Ratios, with a Stellar C/O Ratio and a Potentially Superstellar Ti/H Ratio
Authors: Billy Edwards, Quentin Changeat
Figure caption: Best-fit free retrieval of the JWST NIRSpec and HST WFC3 data for WASP-77A b. The colored regions show the individual contribution of three species (H2O, CO, and TiO) and collision-induced absorption (CIA), while the inset shows the 1σ and 3σ confidence intervals for the retrieved temperature–pressure (T − p) profile. These three species are detected in the HST and JWST data, allowing us to place constraints on elemental ratios for this atmosphere. The best-fit T–p profile has a positive lapse rate (i.e., no evidence for a thermal inversion) in the pressure region probed by our observations (p ∈ [105, 100] Pa).
Paper: Primordial Orbital Alignment of Sednoids
Authors: Yukun Huang, 宇坤 黄, Brett Gladman
Figure caption: Backward integrations of five large-a and high-q TNOs, taking into account their orbital uncertainties. Nominal orbits are colored black, while clones are in different colors. Although 2014 SR349, Alicanto, and 2010 GB174 show very similar a evolutions across the clones (left panel), none of the integrated objects have sufficiently confined ϖ histories (right panel), rendering them still insufficient for the primordial alignment analysis.
Paper: Primordial Orbital Alignment of Sednoids
Authors: Yukun Huang, 宇坤 黄, Brett Gladman
Figure caption: Orbital distributions of TNOs detached by a solar-mass passing star (q * = 300 au and v ∞ = 1 km s −1). The upper panel shows that this particular stellar encounter was able to create all three sednoids (crosses) in the a–q space. However, there was no strong primordial clustering of ϖ post flyby (lower panels).
Paper: SMA Detection of an Extreme Millimeter Flare from the Young Class III Star HD 283572
Authors: Joshua Bennett Lovell, Garrett K. Keating, David J. Wilner, Sean M. Andrews, Meredith MacGregor, Ramisa Akther Rahman, Ramprasad Rao, Jonathan P. Williams
Figure caption: Left: cleaned image of the combined SMA measurement sets from all tracks in which no significant emission is detected. Right: cleaned image of the SMA measurement set for track T3, in which a significant point source is present at the location of HD 283572. The noise is lower in the image with no detection (RMScombined = 0.24 mJy beam−1 than the image with the detection (RMST3 = 0.48 mJy beam−1). Contours are at ±4σ, 6σ, and 8σ levels. SMA beams are in the lower left.
Paper: SMA Detection of an Extreme Millimeter Flare from the Young Class III Star HD 283572
Authors: Joshua Bennett Lovell, Garrett K. Keating, David J. Wilner, Sean M. Andrews, Meredith MacGregor, Ramisa Akther Rahman, Ramprasad Rao, Jonathan P. Williams
Figure caption: Left: cleaned image of T3 with T3:S13 excluded in which a bright point source is present at HD 283572's location. Right: cleaned image of T3:S13 on its own, in which an even brighter point source is present at HD 283572's location. The rms in the left and right images are 0.64 mJy beam−1 and 2.1 mJy beam−1, respectively, and so both are significant detections, albeit at different flux levels. Contours are at ±4σ and 6σ levels. SMA beams are in the lower left.
Paper: SMA Detection of an Extreme Millimeter Flare from the Young Class III Star HD 283572
Authors: Joshua Bennett Lovell, Garrett K. Keating, David J. Wilner, Sean M. Andrews, Meredith MacGregor, Ramisa Akther Rahman, Ramprasad Rao, Jonathan P. Williams
Figure caption: VLASS “quicklook” images (left: epoch 1.2; right: epoch 2.2). In both images, the coordinates are centered on the location of HD 283572. Clear in 1.2 is the detection of a bright point source, whereas in 2.2 the significance is much reduced. The rms in both images is 0.125 mJy beam−1. Contours are at ±4σ, 8σ, and 12σ levels. VLA beams are in the lower left.
Paper: SMA Detection of an Extreme Millimeter Flare from the Young Class III Star HD 283572
Authors: Joshua Bennett Lovell, Garrett K. Keating, David J. Wilner, Sean M. Andrews, Meredith MacGregor, Ramisa Akther Rahman, Ramprasad Rao, Jonathan P. Williams
Figure caption: Flux versus time for track T3, at 29.7 s (black) and 180 s (orange) resolution, including the track-averaged flux (pink, dashed). Shown are the 20 regions we refer to as segments from S1 to S20. All other tracks show data consistent with noise, whereas this track shows persistent elevated emission, with a significant brightening event during S13.
Paper: SMA Detection of an Extreme Millimeter Flare from the Young Class III Star HD 283572
Authors: Joshua Bennett Lovell, Garrett K. Keating, David J. Wilner, Sean M. Andrews, Meredith MacGregor, Ramisa Akther Rahman, Ramprasad Rao, Jonathan P. Williams
Figure caption: From left–right, then top–bottom: maps of the 29.7 integrations during track T3, segment 13 (T3:S13; when the event F1 was detected). Image rms values range from 3.8 to 4.8 mJy beam−1. Integrations 3 and 6 show emission at the 23 and 25 mJy level, respectively, coincident with HD 283572's location. Contours are at ±4σ levels. SMA beams are in the lower left.
Paper: Delayed and Fast-rising Radio Flares from an Optical and X-Ray-detected Tidal Disruption Event in the Center of a Dwarf Galaxy
Authors: Fabao Zhang, Xinwen Shu, Lei Yang, Luming Sun, Zhumao Zhang, Yibo Wang, Guobin Mou, Xue-Guang Zhang, Tianyao Zhou, Fangkun Peng
Figure caption: Left panel: light curves of  AT 2018cqh in the optical (ZTF r band and Gaia G band), X-ray (0.3–2 keV), and radio (0.89, 1.36, and 3 GHz). Note that the optical light curves include the flux contributed by the host. It is clear that there is a delayed brightening in the X-rays, while  AT 2018cqh has faded in the optical to a quiescent level. The radio emission appears even later, for which the flux is still rising in both 0.89 and 3 GHz. For the nondetections, the corresponding 3σ upper limits on flux density are shown. Right panel: the radio luminosity evolution of  AT 2018cqh (red), including the upper limits. Since the date of the VLASS epoch I observations (2017 November 30) is before the time of optical discovery, it was shown for the purpose of illustrating the upper limit on the radio flux. Also shown for comparison are the light curves of the relativistic TDE Sw J1644+57 (dark orange; Cendes et al. 2021) and three other TDEs with late-rising radio emission: ASASSN-15oi (blue; Horesh et al. 2021a), AT 2018hyz (green; Cendes et al. 2022), and iPTF 16fnl (gray; Horesh et al. 2021b).
Paper: Delayed and Fast-rising Radio Flares from an Optical and X-Ray-detected Tidal Disruption Event in the Center of a Dwarf Galaxy
Authors: Fabao Zhang, Xinwen Shu, Lei Yang, Luming Sun, Zhumao Zhang, Yibo Wang, Guobin Mou, Xue-Guang Zhang, Tianyao Zhou, Fangkun Peng
Figure caption: The radio SEDs for two epochs that have quasi-simultaneous observations at different frequencies. For the nondetections, the corresponding 3σ upper limits on flux density are shown. The red and green lines represent the best fit to each SED from our MCMC modeling (Section 3.2), which are the model realizations on a basis of 500 random samples from the MCMC chains. There is a steady rise in both peak flux density and frequency between the two epochs.
Paper: Delayed and Fast-rising Radio Flares from an Optical and X-Ray-detected Tidal Disruption Event in the Center of a Dwarf Galaxy
Authors: Fabao Zhang, Xinwen Shu, Lei Yang, Luming Sun, Zhumao Zhang, Yibo Wang, Guobin Mou, Xue-Guang Zhang, Tianyao Zhou, Fangkun Peng
Figure caption: Left panel: P200/DBSP spectrum observed on 2023 October 6, as compared with the archival SDSS spectrum taken on 2000 October 3. The corresponding stellar continuum models are also shown (purple and blue). Middle panel: a zoomed-in view of the emission-line profile fittings for the H β , [O III], and H α +[N II] doublet lines. Gaussian line models are plotted in red. Right panel: The optical classification of  AT 2018cqh in the BPT diagram based on the emission-line ratios of [O III]/Hβ vs. [N II]/Hα. The optical spectrum displays Seyfert-like narrow emission-line ratios which have not changed between P200 and SDSS observations.
Paper: Delayed and Fast-rising Radio Flares from an Optical and X-Ray-detected Tidal Disruption Event in the Center of a Dwarf Galaxy
Authors: Fabao Zhang, Xinwen Shu, Lei Yang, Luming Sun, Zhumao Zhang, Yibo Wang, Guobin Mou, Xue-Guang Zhang, Tianyao Zhou, Fangkun Peng
Figure caption: The evolution of radius (left), kinetic energy (middle), and ambient density (right) as a function of time from our equipartition analysis, assuming a single outflow is launched into the CNM around the time of optical discovery. Red and blue filled circles indicate parameters for a spherical homogeneous and a collimated conical outflow, respectively.
Paper: Earths Are Not Super-Earths, Saturns Are Not Jupiters: Imprints of Pressure-bump Planet Formation on Planetary Architectures
Authors: Wenrui Xu, 文睿 许, Songhu Wang
Figure caption: The mass difference between adjacent planet pairs q 2/q 1 (q 1/2 denotes the planet–star mass ratio of the inner/outer planet) vs. the mean mass ﹩{({q}_{1}{q}_{2})}^{1/2}﹩. Top panel: individual pairs, with marker colors the same as those in Figure 2. Bottom panel: the distribution of q 2/q 1 around a given ﹩{({q}_{1}{q}_{2})}^{1/2}﹩ for the CKSM population (see method in Appendix B). We approximate the distribution with a lognormal distribution, with the line showing the (logarithmic) mean and the shaded areas covering ±1σ and ±2σ. Our theory predicts that low-mass planets around the pebble isolation mass (super-Earths) and those well below the pebble isolation mass (“Earths”) are formed via fundamentally different channels, and thus the two subpopulations can show different levels of mass uniformity; i.e., “Earths” are not super-Earths. This is in good agreement with the observed distribution. Planets larger than super-Earths also show less uniformity, which could be due to envelope accretion.
Paper: Earths Are Not Super-Earths, Saturns Are Not Jupiters: Imprints of Pressure-bump Planet Formation on Planetary Architectures
Authors: Wenrui Xu, 文睿 许, Songhu Wang
Figure caption: Comparison between the observed planet–star mass ratio q (markers; planets in the same system are also connected by lines) and the pebble isolation mass (red dotted lines and red shading). Chain formation at pressure bumps leads to planet masses comparable to the pebble isolation mass at the location and time of formation, which is consistent with the mass scale of super-Earths. The pebble isolation mass is taken from the fiducial model in Bitsch (2019, Figure 1) at the snowline, with the three red dashed lines corresponding to 0.5, 1, and 2 Myr after disk formation. (We consider the snowline as opposed to the planet’s current location because the snowline is an advantageous location for planet formation, and the planets could migrate after formation.) The observed planets are taken from the CKSM sample (Weiss et al. 2018), and we adopt the mass–radius relation of Chen & Kipping (2017). The distribution of the planet–star mass ratio of the sample is shown in the right panel. The peak of this distribution is consistent with the estimated range of pebble isolation mass. We also show the planet–star mass ratio of the TRAPPIST-1 planets (orange markers; Agol et al. 2021) and the rocky planets in the solar system (blue markers) for reference. The Earth-mass planets in the low-mass system TRAPPIST-1 resemble super-Earths around Sun-like stars in terms of mass ratio and intra-system uniformity. Meanwhile, the rocky planets in the solar system have lower q and exhibit less intra-system uniformity, similar to other low-q exoplanets (see Figure 3).
Paper: Where Did the Amaterasu Particle Come From?
Authors: Michael Unger, Glennys R. Farrar
Figure caption: Density of arrival directions backtracked to the edge of the galaxy for eight GMF model variations from Unger & Farrar (2023); results for the nominal and low energy scales are shown in the left and right columns, respectively. We use Galactic coordinates with the Galactic center at the origin and the longitude increasing toward the left. The measured arrival direction of the Amaterasu particle is shown as a blue cross. For reference, the backtracked direction in the coherent field of Jansson & Farrar (2012a) is shown as an open cross in the top row. For all panels, the magnetic field is a superposition of a regular (B) and a turbulent (b) component. The top row shows one particular realization of the turbulent field (n  b  = 1). The middle and bottom rows show a superposition of the results for 35 different realizations of b (n  b  = 35). The top and middle panels were calculated at a fixed rigidity (the mean values given in Equation (1)), while the bottom row is for the full distribution of rigidities (see Figure 2). The colored contours show the 68% confidence level convex hulls for each GMF model.
Paper: Earths Are Not Super-Earths, Saturns Are Not Jupiters: Imprints of Pressure-bump Planet Formation on Planetary Architectures
Authors: Wenrui Xu, 文睿 许, Songhu Wang
Figure caption: Schematic diagram of various outcomes of planet formation when we assume efficient planet formation at pressure bumps. This diagram summarizes the results from Sections 2.1 and 3.1. Pressure bumps allow planets to form quickly and at very similar times and locations, which leads to pairs or chains of planets with highly similar masses. This leads to intra-system similar “super-Earths” and “Jupiters” whose masses are set by the pebble isolation mass and gas saturation mass, respectively. Meanwhile, planets that form cores slowly (“Earths”) or accrete massive envelopes slowly (“Saturns”) would exhibit less intra-system mass uniformity.
Paper: Where Did the Amaterasu Particle Come From?
Authors: Michael Unger, Glennys R. Farrar
Figure caption: Galaxies within various distances for comparison to the source localization domain in Galactic coordinates. The top panel shows all galaxies up to a distance of 150 Mpc, the other plots include galaxies up to the attenuation horizon, D 0.1 depending on the rigidities corresponding to the particle energy assumed, see Equation (1) particle energy indicated. Contours of the distribution of backtracked particles are shown in blue at ρ = 0.05, see Equation (2). The different colors denote galaxies from the 2MASS survey (gray), galaxies in the local volume, D < 11 Mpc (orange), AGN (red), RGs (black), and SBGs (green).
Paper: Where Did the Amaterasu Particle Come From?
Authors: Michael Unger, Glennys R. Farrar
Figure caption: Simulation of the propagation through extragalactic photon fields of a UHECR, which originates as ﹩{}_{26}^{56}﹩Fe, with a uniform distance distribution and an E −1 energy spectrum (no cutoff) at the source. Left: injected rigidity vs. source distance. Each point denotes a fragment of an iron nucleus that reaches Earth with an energy similar to the one of the Amaterasu particle. The transparency of each point encodes the likelihood the energy is reconstructed to be E low, w  E . The particle type of the fragments arriving at Earth are shown as colors. Right: rigidity distribution of the fragments arriving at Earth. Lines are Gaussian fits to the histograms. Histogram entries are weighted according to their deviation from the measured energy of the TA event, w  E . These plots are for the low energy scale for the Amaterasu particle.
Paper: Where Did the Amaterasu Particle Come From?
Authors: Michael Unger, Glennys R. Farrar
Figure caption: Distribution of the event rigidity at Earth, compatible with the detected energy at the nominal and low energy scales.
Paper: Where Did the Amaterasu Particle Come From?
Authors: Michael Unger, Glennys R. Farrar
Figure caption: Propagation distances of cosmic rays arriving at Earth, in each bin of energy as given on the x-axis of the plot, for iron injected with an ﹩{{ \mathcal R }}_{\text{max}}={10}^{18.6}﹩V energy spectrum. The normalized number of cosmic rays per distance bin is indicated by the color scale. The nominal and low energy (thick central lines) of the Amaterasu particle, with the one standard deviation of the statistical reconstruction uncertainty (dashed lines), are superimposed. The distance, ﹩{D}_{0.1}﹩, at which the relative number of arriving fragments drops below 10% of the value at zero distance is shown as a black line.
Paper: Earths Are Not Super-Earths, Saturns Are Not Jupiters: Imprints of Pressure-bump Planet Formation on Planetary Architectures
Authors: Wenrui Xu, 文睿 许, Songhu Wang
Figure caption: Examples of the different classes of planets our theory predicts. This diagram is for illustration only, and the samples shown here may not be statistically representative of the whole planet population. All systems are chosen from a catalog of known systems with ≥four planets compiled in Mishra et al. (2023), with the exception of HD 37124, which serves as an example of a Jupiter triplet. Generally, a system can contain multiple classes of planets; we highlight the planets that belong to the relevant class with filled markers, and other planets are indicated by open markers. For simplicity, we use the planet–star mass ratio q to (roughly) categorize the planets, with Earths having q < 10−5, super-Earths having q between 10−5 and q Neptune = 5.15 × 10−5, and Saturns and Jupiters having q > q Neptune. We separate the two classes in the right panel by the level of mass uniformity. We list the mass variation ﹩{\rm{\Delta }}\mathrm{log}m﹩ (standard deviation of log planet mass) among the highlighted planets for each system. When there is only one highlighted planet, we compute ﹩{\rm{\Delta }}\mathrm{log}m﹩ using the masses of the highlighted planet and its adjacent planets. The highlight color follows ﹩{\rm{\Delta }}\mathrm{log}m﹩, with blue for ﹩{\rm{\Delta }}\mathrm{log}m\lt \mathrm{log}1.2﹩, gray for ﹩\mathrm{log}1.2\leqslant {\rm{\Delta }}\mathrm{log}m\leqslant \mathrm{log}2﹩, and red for ﹩{\rm{\Delta }}\mathrm{log}m\gt \mathrm{log}2﹩. To visualize the level of mass uniformity, marker sizes are chosen to be ∝q 1/2 (q is the planet-to-star mass ratio) so that the area of the marker is linearly proportional to the planet mass. We use different marker size normalization for low-mass planets (left panel) and gas giants (right panel). We note in passing that Uranus and Neptune are tentatively labeled as super-Earths here, as their masses are very similar to each other and broadly consistent with the pebble isolation mass. The composition of Uranus and Neptune (which might contain more rock than ice; see Helled & Fortney 2020; Teanby et al. 2020) could also be similar to that of water-rich super-Earths (e.g., Luque & Pallé 2022).
Paper: Earths Are Not Super-Earths, Saturns Are Not Jupiters: Imprints of Pressure-bump Planet Formation on Planetary Architectures
Authors: Wenrui Xu, 文睿 许, Songhu Wang
Figure caption: Top panel: the mass ratio distribution of observed intra-system giant planet (m > 100 M ⊕) pairs. Data are taken from the NASA Exoplanet Archive. Color marks the relative mass uncertainty σ  m  (Equation (6)) of each pair. The mass ratio distribution appears bimodal, which could be a result of distinct formation pathways (“Jupiters” and “Saturns”). Bottom panel: examining the significance of multimodality with Hartigan’s dip test. We perform the test on a range of subsamples; each subsample (each marker in the figure) contains all pairs with σ  m  ≤ a certain cutoff value (color coded with same color scale as the top panel). At a sufficiently small σ  m  cutoff (so that σ  m  does not diminish the amplitude of bimodality) and sufficiently large sample size, the multimodality is statistically significant.