adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Long-term Monitoring of Didymos with the LCOGT Network and MRO after the DART Impact
Authors: Tim Lister, Cora Constantinescu, William Ryan, Eileen Ryan, Edward Gomez, Liz Phillips, Agata Rożek, Helen Usher, Brian P. Murphy, Joseph Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: The reduced magnitude H  r (1, 1, α) of (65803) Didymos as a function of phase angle α. The model was fit to the data set (red crosses), which excluded the 30-day period following the time of impact; data from this period after impact are shown as the orange circles and clearly show a different behavior with time/phase than expected from the original (black dashed line) or newly fit H, G 1, G 2 model (blue line).
Paper: Long-term Monitoring of Didymos with the LCOGT Network and MRO after the DART Impact
Authors: Tim Lister, Cora Constantinescu, William Ryan, Eileen Ryan, Edward Gomez, Liz Phillips, Agata Rożek, Helen Usher, Brian P. Murphy, Joseph Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: The comparison between the magnitude of (65803) Didymos and the H, G = 0.15 (black line), the Pravec et al. H, G = 0.2 (purple dotted line), and the H, G 1, G 2 model (blue dashed line) over the time span from T + 15...130 days after impact. Also plotted (right-hand scale) is the solar phase angle over the time period.
Paper: Long-term Monitoring of Didymos with the LCOGT Network and MRO after the DART Impact
Authors: Tim Lister, Cora Constantinescu, William Ryan, Eileen Ryan, Edward Gomez, Liz Phillips, Agata Rożek, Helen Usher, Brian P. Murphy, Joseph Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: The MCMC corner plot showing the 1D and 2D projections of the posterior probability distributions of the parameters from the fit to the H, G 1, G 2 model, along with the best-fit parameters (blue lines and points).
Paper: Long-term Monitoring of Didymos with the LCOGT Network and MRO after the DART Impact
Authors: Tim Lister, Cora Constantinescu, William Ryan, Eileen Ryan, Edward Gomez, Liz Phillips, Agata Rożek, Helen Usher, Brian P. Murphy, Joseph Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: The magnitude of (65803) Didymos as a function of time after the DART impact but on a logarithmic timescale. The same fit to the declining brightness (orange line) and the theoretical H, G and H, G 1, G 2 models (black and blue lines, respectively, as in Figure 14) are also shown.
Paper: Long-term Monitoring of Didymos with the LCOGT Network and MRO after the DART Impact
Authors: Tim Lister, Cora Constantinescu, William Ryan, Eileen Ryan, Edward Gomez, Liz Phillips, Agata Rożek, Helen Usher, Brian P. Murphy, Joseph Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: The galactic latitude (blue line, left-hand scale; used as a proxy for the stellar density within the observing fields) and the rate of on-sky motion of Didymos (red line, right-hand scale) over the course of the observing campaign.
Paper: Long-term Monitoring of Didymos with the LCOGT Network and MRO after the DART Impact
Authors: Tim Lister, Cora Constantinescu, William Ryan, Eileen Ryan, Edward Gomez, Liz Phillips, Agata Rożek, Helen Usher, Brian P. Murphy, Joseph Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: Ratio of the Didymos tail length measured with NoiseChisel to the manually measured length.
Paper: A Spectral Method to Compute the Tides of Laterally Heterogeneous Bodies
Authors: Marc Rovira-Navarro, Isamu Matsuyama, Alexander Berne
Figure caption: Flowchart of the methodology employed to obtain the tidal response.
Paper: The Limited Role of the Streaming Instability during Moon and Exomoon Formation
Authors: Miki Nakajima, Jeremy Atkins, Jacob B. Simon, Alice C. Quillen
Figure caption: (A) Cumulative mass distribution of moonlets formed by streaming instability for Δ = 0.1, Z = 0.1, 0.3. The purple, dark blue, light blue, dark yellow, and light yellow lines indicate parameter values of ﹩(\tilde{G},{\tau }_{{\rm{f}}},Z)﹩ = (0.5898, 0.1, 0.1), (0.1788, 0.1, 0.1), (0.5898, 1, 0.1), (0.1788, 1, 0.1), and (0.1788, 0.1, 0.3). The solid and dashed–dotted lines represent the mass distribution at different times (see Section 3.2). The horizontal axis indicates the moonlet mass (M  p ) normalized by M  G , and the vertical axis indicates the number of moonlets whose masses are larger than the given moonlet mass. (B) Residence time of a moonlet whose mass is M  G  formed by streaming instability at r = 3 R planet as a function of the planetary mass M planet normalized by the Earth mass. The blue solid and yellow dashed–dotted lines represent disks formed by collisions between icy planets and rocky planets, respectively.
Paper: The Limited Role of the Streaming Instability during Moon and Exomoon Formation
Authors: Miki Nakajima, Jeremy Atkins, Jacob B. Simon, Alice C. Quillen
Figure caption: (A) Spacetime diagram for the four cases. The input parameters are (1) (τ f, Δ) = 10−3, 0.3, (2) 10−2, 0.1, (3) 10−1, 0.2, and (4) 1, 0.1, all at Z = 0.1. The horizontal axis is x normalized by the scale height H. The vertical axis indicates the number of orbits. The color shows ﹩{{\rm{\Sigma }}}_{p}/\left\langle {{\rm{\Sigma }}}_{p}\right\rangle ﹩, where Σ p  is the particle surface density and ﹩\left\langle {{\rm{\Sigma }}}_{p}\right\rangle ﹩ is the average along the x-axis. Filament formation occurs in cases 2 and 4, while no filament formation occurs in cases 1 and 3. (B) Summary of results for Z = 0.1 and Z = 0.05. The colors show the p-value, and the clumping regime (p < 0.1) is shown in the sky blue shade. Parameters for cases 1–4 are indicated. This shows that clumping occurs only at small Δ values (Δ = 0.1).
Paper: The Limited Role of the Streaming Instability during Moon and Exomoon Formation
Authors: Miki Nakajima, Jeremy Atkins, Jacob B. Simon, Alice C. Quillen
Figure caption: Snapshots of a 3D simulation (τ f = 1, Δ = 0.1, Z = 0.1, ﹩\tilde{G}=0.5898﹩). The horizontal and vertical axes are x and y, normalized by the scale height H. The color indicates the particle density, normalized by the average density. t indicates the number of orbits. The circles represent the Hill radius of each moonlet formed by streaming instability. At first (t = 0.32), no concentration of particles is observed, but streaming instability clearly develops by t = 2.87. After self-gravity is turned on at t = 3.18, moonlets form by GI (t = 3.39, 3.55). The self-gravitating clumps are identified using PLAN (see the main text).
Paper: The Limited Role of the Streaming Instability during Moon and Exomoon Formation
Authors: Miki Nakajima, Jeremy Atkins, Jacob B. Simon, Alice C. Quillen
Figure caption: Schematic view of Moon formation from an initially vapor-rich disk.
Paper: Using Hydrodynamic Similarity as a Verification Method for Impact Cratering Simulations in the FLAG Hydrocode
Authors: Matthew C. Holmes, Wendy K. Caldwell, Joanne L. Budzien, Carl E. Johnson
Figure caption: The magnitude of pressure differences (∣P  μm − P km∣) between micrometer- and kilometer-scale impact simulations when using Al-6061 (left) and basalt (right) materials. Light blue regions indicate where 1 MPa <∣ΔP∣ < 50 MPa, while dark brown regions indicate where ∣ΔP∣ > 50 MPa.
Paper: Using Hydrodynamic Similarity as a Verification Method for Impact Cratering Simulations in the FLAG Hydrocode
Authors: Matthew C. Holmes, Wendy K. Caldwell, Joanne L. Budzien, Carl E. Johnson
Figure caption: The magnitude of density difference ∣ρ  μm − ρ km∣ between micrometer- and kilometer-scale impact simulations when using Al-6061 (left) and basalt (right). Dark brown regions indicate cells where ∣Δρ∣ > 10 mg cm−3. The simulation time is shown in the upper center and a 1.0 L ruler is shown for reference.
Paper: Using Hydrodynamic Similarity as a Verification Method for Impact Cratering Simulations in the FLAG Hydrocode
Authors: Matthew C. Holmes, Wendy K. Caldwell, Joanne L. Budzien, Carl E. Johnson
Figure caption: Normalized areal mass difference m* as a function of normalized time t/τ for four different cases: strengthless Al-6061 impacts (dark red, solid), strengthless basalt impacts (light blue, solid), Al-6061 impacts with strength (light olive, dashed–dotted), and basalt impacts with gravity scaled as required for similarity (black, dashed).
Paper: Using Hydrodynamic Similarity as a Verification Method for Impact Cratering Simulations in the FLAG Hydrocode
Authors: Matthew C. Holmes, Wendy K. Caldwell, Joanne L. Budzien, Carl E. Johnson
Figure caption: The magnitude of specific energy difference (∣e  μm − e km∣) between micrometer- and kilometer-scale impact simulations when using Al-6061 (left) and basalt (right) materials. Light blue regions indicate where 1 kJ kg−1 <∣Δe∣ < 100 kJ kg−1, while dark brown regions indicate where ∣Δe∣ > 100 kJ kg−1.
Paper: Using Hydrodynamic Similarity as a Verification Method for Impact Cratering Simulations in the FLAG Hydrocode
Authors: Matthew C. Holmes, Wendy K. Caldwell, Joanne L. Budzien, Carl E. Johnson
Figure caption: The magnitude of velocity difference (∥ v   μm −  v  km∥) in units of m s−1 between micrometer- and kilometer-scale impact simulations when using Al-6061 (left) and basalt (right) materials.
Paper: Using Hydrodynamic Similarity as a Verification Method for Impact Cratering Simulations in the FLAG Hydrocode
Authors: Matthew C. Holmes, Wendy K. Caldwell, Joanne L. Budzien, Carl E. Johnson
Figure caption: A time series of 100 μm symmetric Al-6061 impacts without material strength (left of each panel) and with strength (right of each panel). A 5 L ruler is shown for reference.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Orbital period vs. radius of Kepler’s planetary candidates. Those planets that are the only candidate for their given star are represented by black dots, those in two-planet systems as dark blue circles, those in three-planet systems as green triangles, those in four-planet systems as light blue squares, those in systems of five PCs as yellow five-pointed stars, those in systems of six PCs as orange six-pointed stars, the seven PCs associated with KOI-2433 as pink seven-pointed stars, and the eight planets orbiting KOI-351 (Kepler-90) as red eight-pointed stars. The legend lists the number of stars hosting each multiplicity. The planetary candidates are listed in Table 1 (first letter of disposition = “P”). Nontransiting planets (listed in Table 5) and circumbinary planets are not included. Planet candidates only observed to transit once (monotransits) are not plotted because their orbital periods are highly uncertain (see item 4 in the list presented in Section 2.5), but they are accounted for in the multiplicity designation of their companion planets and the total number of systems of each multiplicity given in the legend. KOI-846.01, with a radius R  p = 30.043 R ⊕ (see Section 2.3), falls outside the plotting window. All planets to the right of the dotted gray vertical line at P = 730 days (as well as some of the planets with shorter periods) transited only twice during the Kepler mission and therefore were not detected by the standard Kepler pipeline, which required a minimum of three transits for a detection. It is immediately apparent that there is a paucity of giant planets in multiplanet systems, especially giants with short orbital periods P < 15 days. The upward slope in the lower envelope of the plotted points is caused by the low S/N of small transiting planets with long orbital periods, for which few transits occurred during the time intervals that Kepler observed. Adapted from a previous figure generously provided by Rebekah Dawson.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Median S/N for Kepler planet candidates as a function of location in the period–radius plane. Each square represents a factor of ≈1.1 in radius and ≈1.2 in period. The left panel shows the total S/N, and the right panel shows the average (mean) S/N per transit. The average S/N was calculated by dividing the total S/N by the square root of the number of observed transits for each planet candidate. Note the differences between the color scales of the two panels. The number of planets represented in each colored square ranges from 1 to 32.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Comparison of the impact parameter (b) distributions for planet candidates from this work (orange) to the values listed for planet candidates in DR25 (green). Only planetary candidates with b < 1.2 are shown; PCs with b > 1.2 represent 0.5% of our sample and 1.4% of the DR25 PCs. Restricting the samples to those KOIs that are classified PCs in both catalogs does not substantially alter either of the distributions.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Comparison of the normalized cumulative τ distributions for planets grouped by size. Left panel: subsets are 0.5 R ⊕ < R  p  ≤ 1.0 R ⊕ (dotted light blue), 1.0 R ⊕ < R  p  ≤ 1.6 R ⊕ (solid dark blue), 1.6 R ⊕ < R  p  ≤ 1.8 R ⊕ (dotted light green), 1.8 R ⊕ < R  p  ≤ 2.7 R ⊕ (dashed dark green), 2.7 R ⊕ < R  p  ≤ 5.0 R ⊕ (dotted light red), 5 R ⊕ < R  p  ≤ 9 R ⊕ (dashed–dotted dark red), and 9 R ⊕ < R  p  ≤ 12.5 R ⊕ (double dashed–dotted orange). A seven-sample AD test strongly rejects the null hypothesis that each subset is drawn from a common distribution (p-value ≈ 4 × 10−11). The two smallest radius curves are among the three subsets with the most highly concentrated τ distribution, whereas the two largest radius curves are the subsets with the largest tails. Both of these would be expected if larger (and thus more massive) planets have typically experienced more significant dynamical excitation (e.g., planet–planet scattering followed by secular evolution). Right panel: subsets are 0.5 R ⊕ < R  p  ≤ 1.6 R ⊕ (solid blue), 1.6 R ⊕ < R  p  ≤ 5 R ⊕ (dotted green), and 5 R ⊕ < R  p  ≤ 12.5 R ⊕ (dashed red). A three-sample AD test strongly rejects the null hypothesis that each subset is drawn from a common distribution (p-value ∼ 10−11).
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Transit-to-transit and 4 yr average periods for each of the planets known to orbit Kepler-11, with panels ordered from top to bottom by increasing orbital period. The small dots in the panels on the left show transit-to-transit orbital periods (the length of the time interval between the midpoint of one transit and the midpoint of the subsequent transit) from three samples of the 101 solutions used to compute the period estimates and uncertainties listed in Table 4. Specifically, the 101 solutions are ordered by increasing mean long-term (106 days) orbital period of KOI-157.01 = Kepler-11 c, and blue represents the 17th sample (one standard deviation below the median), black the 51st sample (the median), and red the solution that is 85th (one standard deviation above the median) on this list. The more brightly colored points with a larger symbol size in the left panels and all points in the middle and right panels represent the running average of 4 yr segments centered on the given time. Time is measured from the beginning of Kepler science operations. The green crosses near the left of each panel represent our fits to the Kepler TTs assuming constant period (Table 1). Blue points are plotted first, then black, and finally red points on top. The upper five panels in the right column have been thinned to show only every ninth, seventh, fourth, third, and second transit-to-transit interval to limit the size of the manuscript file.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Comparison between the orbital periods listed in our Table 1 (P, denoted ﹩{P}_{\mathrm{const}}﹩ here) and those presented in Table 6 of Holczer et al. (2016), ﹩{P}_{\sin }﹩. The horizontal coordinate represents the fractional uncertainty given in Table 1, the length of the bars shows Holczer et al.'s (2016) fractional uncertainty, and the vertical coordinate represents the fractional differences between our periods and those of Holczer et al. (2016). Open circles represent planets in multis; black filled circles represent single planets. The plot on the upper left shows the largest scale, and successive plots (upper right, lower left, and lower right) zoom in by a factor of 5 relative to the previous plot. The green diagonal lines divide planets whose period estimates differ between the two tables by more than their uncertainties in our table (above and to the left) from those whose period differences are less than our uncertainties (below and to the right). One planet, the single KOI-1209.01, which has an orbital period of about 9 months, lies outside the range of the plots, with a fractional period difference of 3.9 × 10−3, far larger than either the fractional uncertainty in Table 1 (3.6 × 10−6) or that in Holczer et al.'s (2016) table (5.2 × 10−6); its location is pointed to by the arrow at the upper left of the largest-scale plot. Colored points indicate planets in the dynamically “solved” systems of interest explored in this section: Kepler-11 (orange), Kepler-36 (cyan), Kepler-60 (purple), Kepler-80 (blue), Kepler-223 (magenta), and Kepler-419 (olive).
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Comparison of cumulative τ distributions for planet candidates in multiplanet systems with orbital periods greater than 8 days. The two curves show results for subsets chosen based on the orbital period ratio. Here, the closely spaced subset of PCs is defined as those having a detected companion PC (which could have P < 8 days) with a period within a factor of 2.06, a value selected so that each curve represents nearly the same number of PCs. The widely spaced subset is the complement of the closely spaced PCs. A two-sample AD test rejects the null hypothesis that the τ distributions for the closely and widely spaced PCs are drawn from a common distribution (p-value = 0.037).
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Transit-to-transit and 4 yr average periods for each of the planets known to orbit Kepler-223, ordered by increasing orbital period. The dots in the left panels show transit-to-transit orbital periods from three samples of the C3 posterior from the photodynamical models of Mills et al. (2016) for which the three-body resonant arguments of the inner and outer threesomes of planets remain in libration for 107 yr. The solid curves show the average of 4 yr segments centered on the given time. Black represents the sample with the median long-term (1000 yr) average period of KOI-730.01 among the 12 samples that remained in libration (since this number is even, we broke the degeneracy by choosing the one whose period was closer to the average of the ensemble); the sample with the second-shortest average period of this planet is shown in blue, and red represents the one with the second-longest average period. Time is measured from the beginning of Kepler science operations. The green crosses at the beginning represent our fits to the measured TTs assuming constant period (Table 1).
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Transit-to-transit and 4 yr average periods for each of the planets known to orbit Kepler-80, ordered by increasing orbital period. The dots in the left panels show transit-to-transit orbital periods from three samples of the solution posteriors, as in Figure 26. Time is measured from the beginning of Kepler science operations. The green crosses at the midpoint of Kepler observations represent our fits to the TTs assuming constant period (Table 1). The upper right panel has been thinned to show every fourth mean transit-to-transit interval.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Transit-to-transit and 4 yr average periods for Kepler-419 b, the only known transiting planet in this system. We integrated 4044 samples of system parameters from Almenara et al. (2018) for 104 yr, sorted them by averaged orbital period in Kepler-419 b, and display results from the 642nd (blue), 2023rd (black), and 3403rd (red) members of the resultant list. Left panel: the small points mark the transit-to-transit period, while the larger points mark a 4 yr running average period over 100 yr. The middle and right panels include only the 4 yr running averages over intervals of 1000 and 104 yr, respectively. The panel on the right has been thinned to show every fourth mean transit-to-transit interval.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Transit-to-transit and 4 yr average periods for both of the planets known to orbit Kepler-29, ordered by increasing orbital period. The dots in the left panels show transit-to-transit orbital periods from three samples following Jontof-Hutter et al.'s (2021) dynamical fits to the long-cadence TTs of Rowe & Thompson (2015). The solid curves show the average of 4 yr segments centered on the given time. Black represents the sample with the median long-term (1000 yr) average period of KOI-738.01, blue represents the sample with the 17th lowest average period, and red represents the sample that is 85th on this list. Time is measured from the beginning of Kepler science operations. The green crosses near the left side of all panels represent our fits to the TTs assuming constant period (Table 1).
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Transit-to-transit and 4 yr average periods for Kepler-36 b and Kepler-36 c. The dots in the left panels show transit-to-transit orbital periods from three samples following photodynamical fits to the lightcurve. The solid curves in the left panels and the curves on the right show the average of 4 yr segments centered on the given time. Black represents the sample with the median long-term (1000 yr) average period of KOI-277.01 (=Kepler-36 c), blue is the sample with the 17th lowest average period, and red is the one that is 85th on this list. Time is measured from the beginning of Kepler science operations. The green crosses near the left side of all panels represent our fits to the measured TTs assuming constant period (i.e., the orbital period and uncertainty of that planet listed in Table 1).