adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Ross 458 C: Gas Giant or Brown Dwarf?
Authors: William W. Meynardie, Michael R. Meyer, Ryan J. MacDonald, Per Calissendorff, Elijah Mullens, Gabriel Munoz Zarazua, Anuranj Roy, Hansica Ganta, Eileen C. Gonzales, Arthur Adams, Nikole Lewis, Yucian Hong, Jonathan Lunine
Figure caption: Summary figure of the fit to Ross 458 C using POSEIDON atmospheric retrievals. Top left: median and 1σ and 2σ retrieved spectra compared to the data. Inset is the wavelength range of the 2.8 μm CO2 absorption band, showing a model with and without CO2. Top right: retrieved pressure–temperature profile, with condensation curves of the cloud species considered overplotted, from Virga (N. E. Batalha et al. 2025), and the retrieved cloud location shaded gray. Bottom rows: probability distributions of key parameters, including ﹩{\mathrm{log}}g﹩, molecular abundances, cloud properties, C/O, and [M/H].
Paper: Ross 458 C: Gas Giant or Brown Dwarf?
Authors: William W. Meynardie, Michael R. Meyer, Ryan J. MacDonald, Per Calissendorff, Elijah Mullens, Gabriel Munoz Zarazua, Anuranj Roy, Hansica Ganta, Eileen C. Gonzales, Arthur Adams, Nikole Lewis, Yucian Hong, Jonathan Lunine
Figure caption: Sources of model error for the POSEIDON retrievals. Left: model spectra with 100 layers vs. 1000 layers (top panel) impart a maximum wavelength-dependent relative flux error of 2.4% after binning to R = 300 (bottom panel). Right: model spectra with opacity sampling at Rmodel = 30,000 vs. 100,000 (top panel) impart a maximum wavelength-dependent relative flux error of 4.5% after binning to R = 300 (bottom panel). These two errors combine in quadrature to a model error of 5.1%.
Paper: Ross 458 C: Gas Giant or Brown Dwarf?
Authors: William W. Meynardie, Michael R. Meyer, Ryan J. MacDonald, Per Calissendorff, Elijah Mullens, Gabriel Munoz Zarazua, Anuranj Roy, Hansica Ganta, Eileen C. Gonzales, Arthur Adams, Nikole Lewis, Yucian Hong, Jonathan Lunine
Figure caption: JWST NIRSpec fixed slit spectra of Ross 458 C using the F070LP/G140H, F100LP/G140H, and F170LP/G235H filter–grating combinations. The F100LP/G140H flux has been calibrated to UKIDSS J-band photometry, and the F070LP/G140H and F170LP/G235H fluxes have been calibrated to the F100LP/G140H flux by equalizing the mean of the overlapping regions. The spectra range from 0.8 to 3.1 μm at an average resolving power of R ∼ 2700. Locations of prominent absorption bands (H2O, CH4, and collisionally induced H2) are labeled.
Paper: Ross 458 C: Gas Giant or Brown Dwarf?
Authors: William W. Meynardie, Michael R. Meyer, Ryan J. MacDonald, Per Calissendorff, Elijah Mullens, Gabriel Munoz Zarazua, Anuranj Roy, Hansica Ganta, Eileen C. Gonzales, Arthur Adams, Nikole Lewis, Yucian Hong, Jonathan Lunine
Figure caption: Histogram of the ratio of the error returned by the JWST pipeline to the empirical error measured by comparing the individual frames at a given pixel value, plotted in log space. Each filter–grating combination peaks at a negative value, indicating the pipeline is underestimating the errors compared to the spread of the individual samples. To correct this, we increase the errors by a factor of 1.57 for F070LP/G140H, 2.06 for F100LP/G140H, and 1.94 for F170LP/G235H.
Paper: Ross 458 C: Gas Giant or Brown Dwarf?
Authors: William W. Meynardie, Michael R. Meyer, Ryan J. MacDonald, Per Calissendorff, Elijah Mullens, Gabriel Munoz Zarazua, Anuranj Roy, Hansica Ganta, Eileen C. Gonzales, Arthur Adams, Nikole Lewis, Yucian Hong, Jonathan Lunine
Figure caption: Summary figure of the fit to Ross 458 AB using interpolated grids of PHOENIX models. The description of each panel is the same as in Figure 1, but here we fit to both the A and B components. We use the same metallicity for both components.
Paper: Ross 458 C: Gas Giant or Brown Dwarf?
Authors: William W. Meynardie, Michael R. Meyer, Ryan J. MacDonald, Per Calissendorff, Elijah Mullens, Gabriel Munoz Zarazua, Anuranj Roy, Hansica Ganta, Eileen C. Gonzales, Arthur Adams, Nikole Lewis, Yucian Hong, Jonathan Lunine
Figure caption: Median PHOENIX model compared to the spectrum of Ross 458 AB between 1.10 and 1.26 μm, with various atomic lines from NIST labeled (A. Kramida et al. 2024). The PHOENIX model does not go as deep as the data at many of the atomic lines, leading to spikes in the residuals.
Paper: Ross 458 C: Gas Giant or Brown Dwarf?
Authors: William W. Meynardie, Michael R. Meyer, Ryan J. MacDonald, Per Calissendorff, Elijah Mullens, Gabriel Munoz Zarazua, Anuranj Roy, Hansica Ganta, Eileen C. Gonzales, Arthur Adams, Nikole Lewis, Yucian Hong, Jonathan Lunine
Figure caption: Summary figure of the fit to Ross 458 C using interpolated grids of Sonora Elf Owl models. The description of each panel is the same as in Figure 1.
Paper: Ross 458 C: Gas Giant or Brown Dwarf?
Authors: William W. Meynardie, Michael R. Meyer, Ryan J. MacDonald, Per Calissendorff, Elijah Mullens, Gabriel Munoz Zarazua, Anuranj Roy, Hansica Ganta, Eileen C. Gonzales, Arthur Adams, Nikole Lewis, Yucian Hong, Jonathan Lunine
Figure caption: Summary figure of the fit to Ross 458 C using interpolated grids of Sonora Bobcat models. The description of each panel is the same as in Figure 1.
Paper: Ross 458 C: Gas Giant or Brown Dwarf?
Authors: William W. Meynardie, Michael R. Meyer, Ryan J. MacDonald, Per Calissendorff, Elijah Mullens, Gabriel Munoz Zarazua, Anuranj Roy, Hansica Ganta, Eileen C. Gonzales, Arthur Adams, Nikole Lewis, Yucian Hong, Jonathan Lunine
Figure caption: Summary figure of the fit to Ross 458 C using interpolated grids of ExoREM models. The description of each panel is the same as in Figure 1.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Bolometric light curves for a subset of fvel = 1.0 models using two different values for fmass(0.5, 1.0) and three different mixing parameters: fmix = 1, 0.25, and 0.1. For fmix = 1, the 56Ni is located in the innermost ejecta. For the fmass = 0.5, fmix = 0.1 model, it is nearly mixed out to the outer edge. The inset plot shows the same data without the logarithmic y-axis.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Temperature profiles at 0, 1, 2, and 5 days for two nickel-powered simulations. The rapid cooling from expansion occurs in the first day. The position of the strong temperature gradient (enclosed mass of 0.3 M⊙ for the fmix = 1 case and ∼1 M⊙ for the fmix = 0.25 case) shows the rough position of the 56Ni decay. With time, this energy begins to diffuse to the photosphere.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Initial velocity and temperature profiles for a sampling of our models. We maintain the same profile as the M25aE7.42 model from C. L. Fryer et al. (2018) and scale up the velocity. The temperature scales with the density (mass) and velocity to mimic internal shock heating.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Bolometric light curves of a sample of our shell interactions. These shell interactions are characterized by a sharp rise and a slower decay. The time of the rise is dictated by the position of the shell. The peak brightness depends on the velocity of the shock and the amount of deceleration.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Bolometric light curves for heavily mixed nickel-powered models with four different velocity models: fvel = 1, 2, 4, and 8. As the velocity increases, the light curve peaks earlier, but is dimmer. The inset plot shows the same data without the logarithmic y-axis.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Photospheric properties for the ni0.2f1m1 models varying fvel from 1 to 8. The black line stops when the photosphere has reached the center of the star.
Paper: Ross 458 C: Gas Giant or Brown Dwarf?
Authors: William W. Meynardie, Michael R. Meyer, Ryan J. MacDonald, Per Calissendorff, Elijah Mullens, Gabriel Munoz Zarazua, Anuranj Roy, Hansica Ganta, Eileen C. Gonzales, Arthur Adams, Nikole Lewis, Yucian Hong, Jonathan Lunine
Figure caption: Model of Ross 458 A and Ross 458 B from the median returned parameters from the joint fit. We also plot the SpeX data subtracted by the model of Ross 458 A to show that the remaining flux fitted by Ross 458 B is just scatter around zero.
Paper: Ross 458 C: Gas Giant or Brown Dwarf?
Authors: William W. Meynardie, Michael R. Meyer, Ryan J. MacDonald, Per Calissendorff, Elijah Mullens, Gabriel Munoz Zarazua, Anuranj Roy, Hansica Ganta, Eileen C. Gonzales, Arthur Adams, Nikole Lewis, Yucian Hong, Jonathan Lunine
Figure caption: Posterior distributions of the maximum-likelihood retrieval model, using Na2S slab clouds. A full description of the free parameters and priors can be found in Table 4.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: g-band light curves from a set of modeled light curves powered by both shocks and nickel decay. Our default model assumes the postshock velocities are reduced to 95% of the original velocity. We vary the total ejecta mass, the 56Ni mass, and the 56Ni distribution. The amount of shock heating is tuned to fit the peak of the light curve. Our best fit combines our standard shock-heating model, reducing the velocity by 95% and converting this kinetic energy into thermal energy and 0.2 M⊙ of 56Ni. Combined, these sources fit all but the initial prompt emission in the light curve.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Photospheric velocity vs time (top) and Luminosity vs. time (bottom) for three models: v1ni0.2f0.25m0.5, v1ni0.2f1m0.5, and v2ni0.2f1m1. Although the photospheric velocity can help disentangle the degeneracy in the mass and velocity (compare v1ni0.2f1m0.5 and v2ni0.2f1m1), it is more difficult to disentangle the amount of mixing (compare v1ni0.2f0.25m0.5 and v1ni0.2f1m0.5). Gamma-ray observations or late-time iron lines could determine this mixing, but such observations are typically limited to nearby supernovae.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Optical depth of the ejecta as a function of enclosed mass at a series of times from 0 to 20 days. As the star expands, the photosphere moves inward. Beyond the photosphere, many of the assumptions in both our radioactive-decay and shock-heating models begin to fail. For the radioactive-decay model, we underestimate the heating at low optical depths, leading to light curves that will fall more slowly than our predicted models. For our shock-heating models, equilibrium between the electrons and photons will not be achieved and we will underestimate the UV flux from these models.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Bolometric light curves for shock-powered models. The inset plot shows the same data without the logarithmic y-axis. These models assume that shock heating begins as soon as the shock breaks out of the star.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Light curves from four models where the opacity is increased by a factor of 2 and 5 for our standard and half-mass ejecta models (m1, m0.5). The light curve from the m0.5 model with 5 times the opacity is nearly identical to the m1 model with 2 times the opacity.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: R-band and Swift UVOT luminosities for v1ni0.2f1m0.5 and v1ni0m0.5 with 98% velocity shock heating, v1ni0.2f1m0.5 with 98% velocity shock heating, and v1ni0.2f1m0.5 with 98% velocity shock heating. The inset plot shows the same data without the logarithmic y-axis.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Temperature profile comparison for a shock-heated model and a nickel-heated model at 1, 20, and 40 days. The full parameters for the nickel- and shock-heated models shown are v1ni0.2f1m0.5 and 95% velocity with v1ni0.2f1m0.5, respectively.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Rise and fall times for all nickel- and shock-powered simulations. Runs with no heating source are omitted. The Ic-BL median is taken from S. J. Prentice et al. (2018). Ic-BL and Ic data points are derived from BVRI pseudo-bolometric light curves in S. J. Prentice et al. (2016).
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Nickel- and shock-heated runs with different shock-heating durations and powers. The inset plot shows the same data without the logarithmic y-axis.
Paper: Tracing the Physical Lineage of GRB 211211A: Population Constraints on NS–WD Merger Gamma-Ray Bursts
Authors: Xiao-Tian Xu, 啸天 徐, Bin-Bin Zhang, Yun-Lang Guo, Xiang-Dong Li
Figure caption: Schematic evolution of a massive binary toward SGRBs (Path A) and GRB 211211A (Paths B and C). The abbreviation “Case BA/BB” refers to the mass transfer with a core helium burning/depleted mass donor, and other abbreviations are defined in the text. The meanings of the abbreviations are indicated in the following: (1) MS, (2) He star, (3) WD, (4) SN, (5) NS, (6) CEE, (7) Case BA/BB, mass transfer with a core helium burning/depleted mass donor, (8) AIC, and (9) SGRB.
Paper: Tracing the Physical Lineage of GRB 211211A: Population Constraints on NS–WD Merger Gamma-Ray Bursts
Authors: Xiao-Tian Xu, 啸天 徐, Bin-Bin Zhang, Yun-Lang Guo, Xiang-Dong Li
Figure caption: The calculated fractions of NS–WD binaries in NS–NS binaries as a function of the minimal ZAMS mass assumed for the WD. The corresponding WD masses are indicated on the top. The solid blue line, dashed blue line, and dotted blue line correspond to three evolutionary paths for the NS–WD binaries, which are the standard case (Equation (3); Path B in Figure 1), the hypernova case (Equation (4); Path B but at high-mass regime), and the AIC case (Equation (6); Path C in Figure 1). In addition, the black vertical line indicates our fiducial value, and the horizontal orange line marks the 5% benchmark from observations, and the gray region indicates the confidence interval estimated by the Poisson error (Equation (1)).
Paper: Do Both Black Holes Spin in Merging Binaries? Evidence from GWTC-4 and Astrophysical Implications
Authors: Christian Adamcewicz, Nir Guttman, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane
Figure caption: Posterior distributions for population branching fractions assuming non-spun-up black holes have nonzero, Gaussian-distributed spin magnitudes. The fractions λ0, λ1, λ2, and λb represent subpopulations of binaries in which neither black hole is spun up, the primary black hole is spun up, the secondary black hole is spun up, and both black holes are spun up beyond their initial Gaussian-distributed spin, respectively. From darkest to lightest, contours in two-dimensional panels give the 50%, 90%, and 99% credible regions of the posterior. We find a peak at λ0 ≈ 0.8, indicating that most, but likely not all, black holes follow some Gaussian-like distribution of small spin magnitudes. Meanwhile, λ1 and λ2 peak at zero, indicating that systems in which only one black hole is spun up are rare. On the other hand, λb peaks at ≈0.1, meaning the data favor a considerable fraction of binaries in which both components are spun up beyond spins typical of the rest of the population.
Paper: Do Both Black Holes Spin in Merging Binaries? Evidence from GWTC-4 and Astrophysical Implications
Authors: Christian Adamcewicz, Nir Guttman, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane
Figure caption: Population predictive distribution for the best-fit model when assuming black holes are typically born with χ0 = 0 (blue). The left panel gives the marginal distribution for one component (χ1 and χ2 are identically distributed in this model), while the right panel gives the joint spin magnitude distribution. Both panels give probability in logarithmic scale. In this best-fit model, λb = 1, implying all black holes in the population are spun-up. This results in a Gaussian distribution of spin magnitudes. Overplotted in orange is the ﹩\overline{)\pi }﹩ fit to GWTC-4 from N. Guttman et al. (2025, in preparation). In the one-dimensional plot, the solid and dashed tails give the ﹩\overline{)\pi }﹩ fit for χ1 and χ2, respectively. The heights of the points are scaled such that the tallest point coincides with the median fit to the population model. The color bar gives the normalized weight.
Paper: Do Both Black Holes Spin in Merging Binaries? Evidence from GWTC-4 and Astrophysical Implications
Authors: Christian Adamcewicz, Nir Guttman, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane
Figure caption: Comparison of spin scenarios for the 153 BBH events in GWTC-4. The horizontal axis gives the natural log Bayes factor comparing the hypothesis that at least one component in the binary has a nonzero spin magnitude to the hypothesis that both components have spin magnitudes of zero. The color of each marker is also determined by the same natural log Bayes factor; this helps guide the eye to the events that are most clearly spinning. The vertical axis gives the natural log Bayes factor comparing the hypothesis that both components in the binary spin to the hypothesis that only one component spins. Events tend to cluster around zero—presenting no evidence in any direction. As events show more evidence for component spins of any sort, they consistently show more evidence for both components in the binary having a nonzero spin magnitude as opposed to only one.
Paper: Do Both Black Holes Spin in Merging Binaries? Evidence from GWTC-4 and Astrophysical Implications
Authors: Christian Adamcewicz, Nir Guttman, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane
Figure caption: Posterior distributions for population branching fractions assuming non-spun-up black holes have spin magnitudes of χ0 = 0. The fractions λ0, λ1, λ2, and λb represent subpopulations of binaries in which neither black hole is spun up, the primary black hole is spun up, the secondary black hole is spun up, and both black holes are spun up, respectively. From darkest to lightest, contours in two-dimensional panels give the 50%, 90%, and 99% credible regions of the posterior. We see strong support for λb ≈ 1, implying that almost all black holes in merging binaries have some measurable spin magnitude. This may indicate that nearly all black holes are spun up, or that it is incorrect to assume black holes are typically born with negligibly small spins in the absence of a spin-up mechanism.
Paper: Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae
Authors: Annabelle E. Niblett, Daniel A. Fryer, Christopher L. Fryer
Figure caption: Luminosity vs. time (bottom) and photospheric velocity vs. time (top) for two of our opacity models: v1ni0.2f1m1k2 and v1ni0.2f1m0.5k5. Although these two models have very similar light curves, the velocity profiles are very different.
Paper: Memoirs of Mass Accretion: Probing the Edges of Intracluster Light in Simulated Galaxy Clusters
Authors: Tara Dacunha, Phil Mansfield, Risa H. Wechsler
Figure caption: An illustration of the procedure of measurements and analysis as described in detail in Sections 4–6. We measure the present-day primary and secondary stellar splashback radii of simulated clusters (see Section 4) and probe how they inform the continuous mass accretion histories (MAHs; Section 5) and discrete merger histories of the clusters (Section 6). See the text in Section 2 for a description of each panel and toy figure.
Paper: Do Both Black Holes Spin in Merging Binaries? Evidence from GWTC-4 and Astrophysical Implications
Authors: Christian Adamcewicz, Nir Guttman, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane
Figure caption: Population predictive distribution for the best-fit model when assuming black holes are typically born with nonzero, Gaussian-distributed spins. This is the best-fit model of all considered in this paper. In blue, the left panel gives the marginal distribution for one component (χ1 and χ2 are identically distributed), while the right panel gives the joint spin magnitude distribution. Both panels are in logarithmic scale. In this best-fit model, only λ0 and λb are allowed to be nonzero, implying that for any given system neither black hole is spun up or both black holes are spun up. The 90% credible contributions from these two subpopulations are overplotted in solid and dashed gray lines, respectively. Overplotted in orange is the ﹩\overline{)\pi }﹩ fit to GWTC-4 from N. Guttman et al. (2025, in preparation). In the one-dimensional plot, the solid and dashed tails give the ﹩\overline{)\pi }﹩ fit for χ1 and χ2, respectively. The heights of the points are scaled such that the tallest point coincides with the median fit to the population model. The color bar gives the normalized weight.
Paper: Do Both Black Holes Spin in Merging Binaries? Evidence from GWTC-4 and Astrophysical Implications
Authors: Christian Adamcewicz, Nir Guttman, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane
Figure caption: Updated Figure 1 from H. Tong et al. (2022) with the normalization error corrected (solid lines), compared to the original H. Tong et al. (2022) results (dashed lines). Note that these plots do not exclude GW191109_010717. The left panel gives the posterior of λ0, the fraction of binaries in the nonspinning subpopulation. The blue trace assumes χ1 and χ2 are identically distributed, while the orange trace assumes they are not. As in H. Tong et al. (2022), the ISOSUBPOP variations of these models produce nearly identical posteriors on λ0. Both models now peak as λ0 → 0. The right panel gives the posterior on the minimum allowed cosine spin tilt. The green trace is the posterior when a subpopulation of nonspinning black holes is allowed, while the red trace shows the posterior when this subpopulation is not allowed. The posterior with λ0 > 0 is now more consistent with the λ0 = 0 result than it was in H. Tong et al. (2022). We do not include a comparison with GWTC-2 in this plot.
Paper: Do Both Black Holes Spin in Merging Binaries? Evidence from GWTC-4 and Astrophysical Implications
Authors: Christian Adamcewicz, Nir Guttman, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane
Figure caption: Updated Figure 1 from C. Adamcewicz et al. (2024) with the normalization error corrected (blue), compared to the original results (red). Unlike the corresponding figure in C. Adamcewicz et al. (2024), both sets of results here include GW191109_010717 and GW200129_065458. Posterior corner plot for the fraction of BBH systems with negligible spin λ0, and the fraction of spinning BBH systems with χ1 > 0 as opposed to χ2 > 0, λ1. From darkest to lightest, shading in the two-dimensional panel gives the 50%, 90%, and 99% credible intervals. The posterior for λ1 remains effectively unchanged, while the posterior for λ0 is shifted toward zero.