adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Characterizing the Time Variability of 2M1207 A + b with JWST NIRSpec/PRISM
Authors: Arthur D. Adams, Yifan Zhou, Gabriel-Dominique Marleau, Daniel Apai, Beth A. Biller, Aarynn L. Carter, Johanna M. Vos, Niall Whiteford, Stephan Birkmann, Theodora Karalidi, Xianyu Tan, Jason Wang, Yuhiko Aoyama, Brendan P. Bowler, Mickaël Bonnefoy, Jun Hashimoto
Figure caption: (a) Spectral flux density of the 2M1207 b data. The thickness of the line represents the range in time across the observation. (b) The displacements of the flux from the time mean (Equation (1)), shown on a color map with dimensions of wavelength vs. time of observation (20 exposures across 12.56 hr). (c) The relative evidence for a linear vs. flat model in variability displacement (via Equation (3), shown as the gray region), and for a sinusoidal model vs. linear at each wavelength (purple region). The two wavelength-integrated light curves with the most evidence for nonconstant trends are 0.86–1.77 μm and 3.29–4.34 μm. (d)–(f) Light curves showing the variability displacement for Hα (d) and across the two wavelength ranges with the highest contiguous evidence for a linear trend in variability displacement across time (e) and (f). All light curves return the strongest preferences for linear models, which are plotted over the data.
Paper: Characterizing the Time Variability of 2M1207 A + b with JWST NIRSpec/PRISM
Authors: Arthur D. Adams, Yifan Zhou, Gabriel-Dominique Marleau, Daniel Apai, Beth A. Biller, Aarynn L. Carter, Johanna M. Vos, Niall Whiteford, Stephan Birkmann, Theodora Karalidi, Xianyu Tan, Jason Wang, Yuhiko Aoyama, Brendan P. Bowler, Mickaël Bonnefoy, Jun Hashimoto
Figure caption: Best-fitting values for a fit of the displacement of 2M1207 A’s flux from the time mean to a sinusoid (Equation (2)), as colored points with black error bars. The color of each point corresponds to the “most-preferred” model for the “moderate” threshold of ΔBIC ≥ 6, matching the colors in Figure 4: purple is a constant model, blue is a linear model, teal is a quadratic model, green is a cubic model, and yellow is a sinusoidal model. Values with a ΔBIC > 2 preferring a sinusoid over a linear fit are shown with filled circles; others are shown with empty circles. The plot of best-fit variability periods excludes points that return a period at the upper bound of our fit, which is 2.5× the observing duration of 12.56 hr. The observing duration is shown as a dashed gray line.
Paper: Characterizing the Time Variability of 2M1207 A + b with JWST NIRSpec/PRISM
Authors: Arthur D. Adams, Yifan Zhou, Gabriel-Dominique Marleau, Daniel Apai, Beth A. Biller, Aarynn L. Carter, Johanna M. Vos, Niall Whiteford, Stephan Birkmann, Theodora Karalidi, Xianyu Tan, Jason Wang, Yuhiko Aoyama, Brendan P. Bowler, Mickaël Bonnefoy, Jun Hashimoto
Figure caption: Top panel: time-resolved 2M1207 b spectra (black), with the vertical thickness of the line showing the range in time. Overplotted are error bars representing the time-mean uncertainties. The the JWST NIRSpec data published in K. L. Luhman et al. (2023) are shown in gray, and a reproduction of the QEQ-1 model from Z. Zhang et al. (2025) is shown in red. A modified version of their model, with the relative areal filling fraction of the “thin” and “thick” columns optimized for our data is shown in blue. Central panel: the residuals of each of our spectra with models optimized for cloud filling factor are shown in black, using the pessimistic data uncertainties described in Sections 2.3 and 3.3.1. Bottom panel: the range of differences across all time-resolved spectra presented in this work, each vs. the downsampled K. L. Luhman et al. (2023) spectrum, scaled to the measurement uncertainties for our spectra.
Paper: Characterizing the Time Variability of 2M1207 A + b with JWST NIRSpec/PRISM
Authors: Arthur D. Adams, Yifan Zhou, Gabriel-Dominique Marleau, Daniel Apai, Beth A. Biller, Aarynn L. Carter, Johanna M. Vos, Niall Whiteford, Stephan Birkmann, Theodora Karalidi, Xianyu Tan, Jason Wang, Yuhiko Aoyama, Brendan P. Bowler, Mickaël Bonnefoy, Jun Hashimoto
Figure caption: A reproduction of the time-mean 2M1207 b spectrum with the corresponding fluxes measured by processing each of the background samples in the same way as was done to reduce the 2M1207 b data. The gray region shows the range 1–1.3 μm, an approximation of where any of the measured background fluxes is ≳10% of the flux of 2M1207 b. Top inset: a reproduction of Figure 2, for reference. Bottom left: a comparison of the integrated light curve of the variability displacement of 2M1207 b from 1 to 1.3 μm, with a light curve of the background samples integrated over the same wavelengths, normalized to the time-mean flux of 2M1207 b. Bottom right: the variability displacements of each light curve, here normalized to their respective time means. ρ represents the coefficient from a Spearman rank correlation test; here, we see the light curves are moderately correlated at ρ = 0.61.
Paper: Characterizing the Time Variability of 2M1207 A + b with JWST NIRSpec/PRISM
Authors: Arthur D. Adams, Yifan Zhou, Gabriel-Dominique Marleau, Daniel Apai, Beth A. Biller, Aarynn L. Carter, Johanna M. Vos, Niall Whiteford, Stephan Birkmann, Theodora Karalidi, Xianyu Tan, Jason Wang, Yuhiko Aoyama, Brendan P. Bowler, Mickaël Bonnefoy, Jun Hashimoto
Figure caption: The best-fit filling fractions of the thinly clouded layers in the atmospheric models described in Section 4. The dashed black line is the time-mean filling fraction. The region shaded in red represents the range of filling fractions used in the model of variability (see Figure 11).
Paper: Characterizing the Time Variability of 2M1207 A + b with JWST NIRSpec/PRISM
Authors: Arthur D. Adams, Yifan Zhou, Gabriel-Dominique Marleau, Daniel Apai, Beth A. Biller, Aarynn L. Carter, Johanna M. Vos, Niall Whiteford, Stephan Birkmann, Theodora Karalidi, Xianyu Tan, Jason Wang, Yuhiko Aoyama, Brendan P. Bowler, Mickaël Bonnefoy, Jun Hashimoto
Figure caption: Colored bars representing the preferences for models of 2M1207 A, including models of intermediate complexities (i.e., quadratic and cubic polynomials). Each model is fit to the mean-subtracted time-series data at each wavelength element. Our criteria for determining the most-preferred model are described in Section 3.1. The brighter the color, the more complex the model preferred at that individual wavelength. We show three thresholds for model selection: ΔBIC ≥ 2, 6, and 10.
Paper: Characterizing the Time Variability of 2M1207 A + b with JWST NIRSpec/PRISM
Authors: Arthur D. Adams, Yifan Zhou, Gabriel-Dominique Marleau, Daniel Apai, Beth A. Biller, Aarynn L. Carter, Johanna M. Vos, Niall Whiteford, Stephan Birkmann, Theodora Karalidi, Xianyu Tan, Jason Wang, Yuhiko Aoyama, Brendan P. Bowler, Mickaël Bonnefoy, Jun Hashimoto
Figure caption: Colored bars representing the preferences for models of 2M1207 b, including models of intermediate complexities (i.e., quadratic and cubic polynomials). Each model is fit to the mean-subtracted time-series data at each wavelength element. Our criteria for determining the most-preferred model are described in Section 3.1. The brighter the color, the more complex the model preferred at that individual wavelength. We show three thresholds for model selection: ΔBIC ≥ 2, 6, and 10.
Paper: Asteroid Mass Estimation by Mutual Perturbations During Close Encounters After Gaia Focused Product Release
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Davide Farnocchia, Jon D. Giorgini, Ryan S. Park
Figure caption: Difference in GM estimates when varying criteria for inclusion in the weighted mean. D is the maximum threshold to reject outliers as given by Equation (5). r is the reduction in uncertainty required to consider the test asteroid for the weighted mean. The nominal is 10% and we show the estimates for 5% and 25% reduction.
Paper: Asteroid Mass Estimation by Mutual Perturbations During Close Encounters After Gaia Focused Product Release
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Davide Farnocchia, Jon D. Giorgini, Ryan S. Park
Figure caption: Initial mass values and uncertainties for the main-belt asteroids, Trojans and Centaurs in the perturber list. The color code indicates the taxonomic type, the masses from R. S. Park et al. (2021) and uncertainties from D. Farnocchia et al. (2021; SB 441), the set for which we assume 2 ± 1 g cm−3, and other sources. Objects of GM > 1 km3s−2 are labeled. The full list is in available as supplementary information with an excerpt in the Appendix in Table 5.
Paper: Asteroid Mass Estimation by Mutual Perturbations During Close Encounters After Gaia Focused Product Release
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Davide Farnocchia, Jon D. Giorgini, Ryan S. Park
Figure caption: Mass estimates of 6 Hebe, 235 Carolina, 88 Thisbe and 275 Sapientia for the test asteroids with the most signal. A priori uncertainties for 6 Hebe and 88 Thisbe are 1 km3 s−2.
Paper: Asteroid Mass Estimation by Mutual Perturbations During Close Encounters After Gaia Focused Product Release
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Davide Farnocchia, Jon D. Giorgini, Ryan S. Park
Figure caption: (Top) Heliocentric orbit of (19192) 1992 DY5 and close encounters experienced within its data arc. (Bottom) Correlated estimates of the masses of 106 Dione and 380 Fiducia given by (19192) 1992 DY5 as test asteroid (yellow), estimates from other test asteroids (blue, orange if rejected) and the final estimates (black). The ellipse and error bars correspond to 1σ levels of uncertainty.
Paper: Asteroid Mass Estimation by Mutual Perturbations During Close Encounters After Gaia Focused Product Release
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Davide Farnocchia, Jon D. Giorgini, Ryan S. Park
Figure caption: Initial, a priori or prefit (Pre) and a final mass estimates of main-belt asteroids, Trojans and Centaurs. The bottom panel shows the initial and final uncertainties of main-belt asteroids.
Paper: Asteroid Mass Estimation by Mutual Perturbations During Close Encounters After Gaia Focused Product Release
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Davide Farnocchia, Jon D. Giorgini, Ryan S. Park
Figure caption: Number of encounters found in each bin of test asteroid orbit elements at the reference epoch: semimajor axis, eccentricity, and inclination. The scatter on top of the color map shows the location of the asteroids in the perturber list.
Paper: Asteroid Mass Estimation by Mutual Perturbations During Close Encounters After Gaia Focused Product Release
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Davide Farnocchia, Jon D. Giorgini, Ryan S. Park
Figure caption: Densities of asteroids for which we estimated a mass with SNR > 3. The uncertainties are only shown for objects with well determined diameters, as described in the text.
Paper: Asteroid Mass Estimation by Mutual Perturbations During Close Encounters After Gaia Focused Product Release
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Davide Farnocchia, Jon D. Giorgini, Ryan S. Park
Figure caption: Number of close approaches each test asteroid experienced within its data arc with any of the perturber asteroids. Test asteroids encounter an average of 3.9 perturbers within their data arcs.
Paper: Asteroid Mass Estimation by Mutual Perturbations During Close Encounters After Gaia Focused Product Release
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Davide Farnocchia, Jon D. Giorgini, Ryan S. Park
Figure caption: 77 Mass estimates of SNR > 10, sorted by final mass and labeled by asteroid number.
Paper: A Sample of Eccentric Eclipsing Binaries in TESS
Authors: Yanke Tang, Xiaodian Chen, Ning Gai, Shu Wang, Zichuan Li, Zhikai Li, Kai Li, Yifan Wang
Figure caption: Gaia absolute magnitude versus intrinsic color diagram. Red dots show the location of 495 EEBs, which have parallax uncertainties better than 20%. The gray dots are the main-sequence grid with different ages and masses from the PARSEC isochrone. (Y. Chen et al. 2019).
Paper: A Sample of Eccentric Eclipsing Binaries in TESS
Authors: Yanke Tang, Xiaodian Chen, Ning Gai, Shu Wang, Zichuan Li, Zhikai Li, Kai Li, Yifan Wang
Figure caption: Our eccentricity ﹩| e\cos \omega | ﹩, ﹩| e\sin \omega | ﹩ compared with A. B. Justesen & S. Albrecht (2021). The top panels are the comparison diagrams, and the bottom panels are the residual diagrams. The residuals are the values of Justesen21 minus our values. The red solid line is the one-to-one line, while the red dotted line shows the difference in ﹩| e\sin \omega | ﹩ estimated by the two different methods.
Paper: A Sample of Eccentric Eclipsing Binaries in TESS
Authors: Yanke Tang, Xiaodian Chen, Ning Gai, Shu Wang, Zichuan Li, Zhikai Li, Kai Li, Yifan Wang
Figure caption: The minimum eccentricity versus period diagram. EEBs are divided into four groups by their absolute magnitude. Solid circles are the results of this paper, and hollow circles are the results obtained from several previous studies (K. Hong et al. 2015, 2016; P. Zasche et al. 2018, 2020, 2021; I. Shivvers et al. 2014).
Paper: A Sample of Eccentric Eclipsing Binaries in TESS
Authors: Yanke Tang, Xiaodian Chen, Ning Gai, Shu Wang, Zichuan Li, Zhikai Li, Kai Li, Yifan Wang
Figure caption: The eccentricity calculated by our method e1 compared with the eccentricity e2 calculated by the method of Z. Mikulášek (2015). The top panels are the comparison diagrams, and the bottom panels are the residual diagrams. The residuals are the values of our calculation minus the Z. Mikulášek (2015) values.
Paper: A Sample of Eccentric Eclipsing Binaries in TESS
Authors: Yanke Tang, Xiaodian Chen, Ning Gai, Shu Wang, Zichuan Li, Zhikai Li, Kai Li, Yifan Wang
Figure caption: Our eccentricity ﹩| e\cos \omega | ﹩, ﹩| e\sin \omega | ﹩ compared with A. Prša et al. (2022). The top panels are the comparison diagrams, and the bottom panels are the residual diagrams. The residuals are the values of Prsa22 minus our values.
Paper: A Sample of Eccentric Eclipsing Binaries in TESS
Authors: Yanke Tang, Xiaodian Chen, Ning Gai, Shu Wang, Zichuan Li, Zhikai Li, Kai Li, Yifan Wang
Figure caption: Histogram of period for EEBs. The bin size is 0.1 in ﹩{\mathrm{log}}P﹩. The period shortens as the absolute magnitude becomes brighter.
Paper: A Sample of Eccentric Eclipsing Binaries in TESS
Authors: Yanke Tang, Xiaodian Chen, Ning Gai, Shu Wang, Zichuan Li, Zhikai Li, Kai Li, Yifan Wang
Figure caption: LC of TIC 425549135. Black dots denote the TESS observations, while the red solid line corresponds to the best fitting based on the method of Z. Mikulášek (2015). Red dashed lines represent the mideclipse phase, while blue dashed lines represent the start or the end of the eclipse.
Paper: A Sample of Eccentric Eclipsing Binaries in TESS
Authors: Yanke Tang, Xiaodian Chen, Ning Gai, Shu Wang, Zichuan Li, Zhikai Li, Kai Li, Yifan Wang
Figure caption: The top panel displays the trend of the omega values over time for TIC167692429, while the bottom panel shows the residuals.
Paper: A Link between Rocky Planet Density and Host Star Chemistry
Authors: Aida Behmard, Casey L. Brinkman, Soichiro Hattori, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Megan Bedell
Figure caption: Uncompressed (blue) and bulk (green) rocky planet densities vs. host star [Mg/Fe] for planets hosted by both FGK (circles) and M dwarfs (triangles), colored by planet radii values. Rocky solar system bodies (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) are plotted for comparison as orange diamonds. Our best-fit linear models from our MCMC fitting routine are plotted as blue lines along with their associated 1σ confidence intervals. Pearson correlation statistics for the uncompressed density case are provided in the bottom left corner, considering just the FGK-hosted rocky planets and the entire FGKM sample. We label the high-confidence and possible thick disk planets TOI-561 b and Kepler-10 b, respectively.
Paper: A Link between Rocky Planet Density and Host Star Chemistry
Authors: Aida Behmard, Casey L. Brinkman, Soichiro Hattori, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Megan Bedell
Figure caption: Planet bulk density vs. all rocky elements considered in our analysis in [X/Fe] form. As in Figure 3, rocky solar system bodies (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) are plotted for comparison as orange diamonds. Rocky planets hosted by FGK and M dwarfs are denoted as circles and triangles, respectively, and are colored by planet radii values. The best-fit linear trends from our MCMC fitting routine are plotted as blue lines along with their 1σ confidence intervals. We provide the Pearson correlation statistics in the bottom left corners of each panel, considering just the FGK-hosted rocky planets and the entire FGKM sample. TOI-1347 b is not present in the Si, O, and Ni panels because it has unreliable host star abundances for these elements.
Paper: A Link between Rocky Planet Density and Host Star Chemistry
Authors: Aida Behmard, Casey L. Brinkman, Soichiro Hattori, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Megan Bedell
Figure caption: [Mg/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] for stars that host our rocky planet sample, as well as all main-sequence dwarfs in SDSS-V with reliable abundances. The SDSS-V dwarfs are plotted in the background as transparent blue dots, while the FGK and M dwarfs that host our rocky planet sample are marked as circles and triangles, respectively, and are colored by the densities of their rocky planets. The blue contours trace the background star 10% density distribution levels, and the dashed black line delineates the thin–thick disk separation (M. Franchini et al. 2020). TOI-561 and Kepler-10 are highlighted as high-confidence and possible thick disk stars, respectively.
Paper: A Link between Rocky Planet Density and Host Star Chemistry
Authors: Aida Behmard, Casey L. Brinkman, Soichiro Hattori, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Megan Bedell
Figure caption: All small (RP ≤ 1.8 R⊕), rocky planets from the Exoplanet Archive (J. L. Christiansen et al. 2025) with <30% fractional radius and mass uncertainties (gray points). Planets with masses and radii consistent with a rocky composition (pure iron to pure MgSiO3 rock) are contained within the brown shaded region (L. Zeng et al. 2019). Our rocky planet sample with host star abundances from SDSS-V is shown in color, which corresponds to host star [Fe/H]. Planets hosted by FGK dwarfs are marked as circles, while planets hosted by M dwarfs are marked as triangles. The one planet not contained within the L. Zeng et al. (2019) region is TOI-561 b, the only high-confidence thick disk planet in our sample. We also label Kepler-10 b, another possible thick disk planet.
Paper: A Link between Rocky Planet Density and Host Star Chemistry
Authors: Aida Behmard, Casey L. Brinkman, Soichiro Hattori, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Megan Bedell
Figure caption: Planet bulk density vs. all rocky elements considered in our analysis in [X/H] form. Rocky solar system bodies (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) are plotted for comparison as orange diamonds. Rocky planets hosted by FGK and M dwarfs are denoted as circles and triangles, respectively, and are colored by planet radii values. The best-fit linear trends from our MCMC fitting routine are plotted as blue lines along with their 1σ confidence intervals. We provide the Pearson correlation statistics in the bottom left corners of each panel, considering just the FGK-hosted rocky planets and the entire FGKM sample. TOI-1347 b is not present in the Si, O, and Ni panels because it has unreliable host star abundances for these elements.
Paper: A Link between Rocky Planet Density and Host Star Chemistry
Authors: Aida Behmard, Casey L. Brinkman, Soichiro Hattori, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Megan Bedell
Figure caption: Rocky planet densities vs. host star [Mg/Fe] for planets hosted by both FGK (circles) and M dwarfs (triangles), colored by planet radii values. Rocky solar system bodies (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) are plotted for comparison as orange diamonds. Our best-fit linear model from our MCMC fitting routine is plotted as a blue line along with the associated 1σ confidence intervals. Pearson correlation statistics are provided in the bottom left corner, considering just the FGK-hosted rocky planets and the entire FGKM sample. We label the high-confidence and possible thick disk planets TOI-561 b and Kepler-10 b, respectively.
Paper: The Second and Third Data Releases from the UKIRT Hemisphere Survey
Authors: Adam C. Schneider, Frederick J. Vrba, Justice Bruursema, Jeffrey A. Munn, Mike Irwin, Mike Read, Watson Varricatt, Tom Kerr, Klaus Hodapp, Simon Dye, Stephen J. Williams, Andrew T. Cenko, Trudy M. Tilleman, Marc A. Murison, Barry Rothberg, Scott Dahm, Bryan Dorland, Andy Lawrence, Kenneth C. Chambers
Figure caption: The number of observations (Stacks) as a function of date for DR1, DR2, and DR3. While DR1, DR2, and DR3 generally correspond to J-band, K-band, and H-band observations, respectively, the hatched regions show the dates of additional J-band observations included in DR2 and the dates of additional K-band observations included in DR3.
Paper: The Second and Third Data Releases from the UKIRT Hemisphere Survey
Authors: Adam C. Schneider, Frederick J. Vrba, Justice Bruursema, Jeffrey A. Munn, Mike Irwin, Mike Read, Watson Varricatt, Tom Kerr, Klaus Hodapp, Simon Dye, Stephen J. Williams, Andrew T. Cenko, Trudy M. Tilleman, Marc A. Murison, Barry Rothberg, Scott Dahm, Bryan Dorland, Andy Lawrence, Kenneth C. Chambers
Figure caption: UHS K-band coverage map showing the number of detections per square degree, which includes all frames from DR2 and DR3. Areas previously covered by the UKIDSS LAS, GPS, and GCS are indicated.
Paper: The Second and Third Data Releases from the UKIRT Hemisphere Survey
Authors: Adam C. Schneider, Frederick J. Vrba, Justice Bruursema, Jeffrey A. Munn, Mike Irwin, Mike Read, Watson Varricatt, Tom Kerr, Klaus Hodapp, Simon Dye, Stephen J. Williams, Andrew T. Cenko, Trudy M. Tilleman, Marc A. Murison, Barry Rothberg, Scott Dahm, Bryan Dorland, Andy Lawrence, Kenneth C. Chambers
Figure caption: WFCAM array #4 before (left) and after (center) the appearance of dead pixels described in Section 2.4. The right image shows the size of the dead pixel region for the last H-band image included in DR3.
Paper: The Second and Third Data Releases from the UKIRT Hemisphere Survey
Authors: Adam C. Schneider, Frederick J. Vrba, Justice Bruursema, Jeffrey A. Munn, Mike Irwin, Mike Read, Watson Varricatt, Tom Kerr, Klaus Hodapp, Simon Dye, Stephen J. Williams, Andrew T. Cenko, Trudy M. Tilleman, Marc A. Murison, Barry Rothberg, Scott Dahm, Bryan Dorland, Andy Lawrence, Kenneth C. Chambers
Figure caption: UHS H-band DR3 coverage map showing the number of detections per square degree. Areas previously covered by the UKIDSS LAS, GPS, and GCS are indicated.
Paper: The Second and Third Data Releases from the UKIRT Hemisphere Survey
Authors: Adam C. Schneider, Frederick J. Vrba, Justice Bruursema, Jeffrey A. Munn, Mike Irwin, Mike Read, Watson Varricatt, Tom Kerr, Klaus Hodapp, Simon Dye, Stephen J. Williams, Andrew T. Cenko, Trudy M. Tilleman, Marc A. Murison, Barry Rothberg, Scott Dahm, Bryan Dorland, Andy Lawrence, Kenneth C. Chambers
Figure caption: Data quality measurements for all J-, H-, and K-band UHS frames, including depth (Vega magnitudes), PSF FWHM (arcsec), stellar ellipticity, zero-point magnitude, sky brightness (mag arcsec−2) and air mass.
Paper: Velocity Shift and Signal-to-Noise Ratio Limits for High-resolution Spectroscopy of Hot Jupiters Using Keck/KPIC
Authors: Kevin S. Hong, Luke Finnerty, Michael P. Fitzgerald
Figure caption: (Top) Planet and stellar model spectra in four KPIC orders used for simulating spectra. (Bottom) Planet-to-star spectroscopic flux ratio for each planet model. We assumed in our simulations that the planet and star radii were the same for all systems, resulting in a planet-to-star area ratio of 0.0145. The WASP-33 b model has the greatest flux ratio among all planet models and shows a strong thermal inversion and strong continuum. The HD 189733 b and HD 149026 b models have a similar continuum, but the former shows slightly stronger spectral features relative to the continuum.