adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Landscape of Coronal X-Ray Variability and Cycles
Authors: Thomas Ayres
Figure caption: Representative dynamo diagrams. In each panel, small dots are MS single cycles. Paired larger dots and diamonds are double cycles. Characters mark additional objects: ⊙ =Sun,“β”=β Hyi, “ι”=ι Hor, “ϵ”=ϵ Eri, “8 ”=HD 81809, “A ”=α Cen A, “B ”=α Cen B, “a ”=61 Cyg A, “b ”=61 Cyg B. Color-coding refers to four broad TEFF bins (see the text). Panel (a): Saar–Brandenburg version. Blue dashed lines are their proposed “Active” and “Inactive” branches. Panel (b): Böhm–Vitense version. A﹩{}^{{\prime} }﹩ and I﹩{}^{{\prime} }﹩ are alternative Active and Inactive branches of that study. Panel (c): Bonanno–Corsaro version, with their novel, contrarian G1 and G2 tracks (red dotted–dashed line). A﹩{}^{{\prime} }﹩ and I﹩{}^{{\prime} }﹩ branches (blue dashed) are copied from the previous panel (b) (where the G tracks are also shown). Panel (d): modified Böhm–Vitense diagram (Ro replacing PROT). A fanciful interpretation, equally unfettered by theory, is an “echelle” pattern, with equally spaced slanted distributions of PCYC vs. Ro (green dashed lines).
Paper: Landscape of Coronal X-Ray Variability and Cycles
Authors: Thomas Ayres
Figure caption: X-ray images, in reverse grayscale, from the Big-Three observatories. In all frames, east is to left, north to top. Maps are displayed as the square root of count-rate densities. Spectral types and distances (in parsecs) are noted in the top panels within (a)–(c), bottom-left side and -right side, respectively, and all panels of (d). Panel (a): Proxima from Chandra (ACIS-S) in the top panel; XMM EPIC (all three cameras: M1 = MOS1, M2 = MOS2, and pn) in the middle; and Swift XRT in the lower frame. Outer white circles represent 95% encircled energy diameter for Chandra and 80% for XMM and Swift. Inner white circles (not shown for Chandra) are half-energy diameters. Panel (b): α Cen AB as recorded by HRC-I in the upper panel, and EPIC in the lower panel. The Chandra image is centered on X-ray brighter B component (the K dwarf); each XMM image is centered on the apparently symmetrical point source of the blended binary. The pointings were about a month apart, when the AB separation was 6″. The binary is cleanly resolved by HRC-I, but large event clouds of EPIC obscure the pair. Panel (c): triple source HD 189733 from Chandra in the upper panel (ACIS-S), and XMM in the lower panel. The image is centered on brightest source, K dwarf HD 189733A. The B component, a dM star, is 11″ to southwest. The third source, south of A and somewhat brighter than B, is a background object not associated with the AB pair. Panel (d): montage of selected members of Cycles sample, all close binaries: Chandra “Seven Dwarfs” in the upper panel (HRC-I), and XMM triple views of wider binary 61 Cyg AB in the lower panel. The red circle in the α CMi frame shows predicted location of the WD companion.
Paper: Landscape of Coronal X-Ray Variability and Cycles
Authors: Thomas Ayres
Figure caption: Source-fitting and flare filtering applied to active red dwarf AU Mic as viewed by the X-ray Big-Three. The left-hand panels depict a reverse grayscale image (in cnt [″]−2) constructed by spatially binning X-ray events in subresolution pixels. The dotted–dashed annulus outlines the background extraction region, which, for XMM and Swift, was subdivided into quadrants, with a second-from-the-top rule. The right-hand panels show CR time series and the results of applying an “Olympic filter.” The large red dot indicates the mean filtered CR; the thick vertical bar notes ensemble standard deviation relative to that mean (“flare flag”). Panel (a): single HRC-I pointing, ObsID 12236, with linear stretch. Green points were retained by flare filter; dark dots were excluded. Panel (b): single EPIC-pn exposure, ObsID 0822740401, with linear, though saturated, stretch. Colors in right-hand panel have the same meaning as in panel (a). Panel (c): average of 30 XRT pointings, with 3 dex logarithmic stretch. Here, dark dots in lower right-hand panel represent CR of snapshots within single exposure wrapper (delimited in elapsed time by vertical green lines); the red dot and bar indicate filtered average and flare flag (no flag if there is only a single snapshot in ObsID). The upper-right panel displays same information in civil time.
Paper: Landscape of Coronal X-Ray Variability and Cycles
Authors: Thomas Ayres
Figure caption: Sensitivity curves for instruments utilized in this work: XMM in the left panel; CXO and SWX in the right panel. The thicker curves and larger symbols are ST, referring to lower x-axes scales and left-hand y-axes. Symbols mark specific instruments according to the legend (right-hand panel). EPIC curves (triangles: blue for MOS, green for pn) are further split into thick filter (lower of each pair) and medium filter (upper). Note the sharp drop of XMM and SWX responses toward cooler temperatures compared to Chandra HRC. Underlying thinner curves and smaller symbols show results of averaging sensitivities against DEM models to deliver FX-dependent ﹩\langle S{\rangle }_{{F}_{{\rm{X}}}}﹩ factors, now referring to upper x-axis scales (but still left-hand y-axes). Averaging has moderated steep downturns of XMM and SWX sensitivities, although the averages still bend downward toward lower activity (smaller FX). Chandra HRC ﹩\langle S{\rangle }_{{F}_{{\rm{X}}}}﹩ curves are much flatter, and the S segment even trends slightly upward in the lowest FX bins. Desired Rosseland-average FX-dependent energy-conversion factors, ﹩\langle {\rm{ECF}}{\rangle }_{{F}_{{\rm{X}}}}﹩, are the inverse of ﹩\langle S{\rangle }_{{F}_{{\rm{X}}}}﹩ curves (as enumerated on the right-hand, inverted y-axes).
Paper: Landscape of Coronal X-Ray Variability and Cycles
Authors: Thomas Ayres
Figure caption: B. E. Wood et al. (2018) DEM models as adapted for this study (gray shading). Distributions are normalized, displayed on linear y-axis scale, and displaced vertically in even steps for clarity. To the right of each DEM model is the ﹩\mathrm{log}{F}_{{\rm{X}}}﹩ “label.” Also shown are toy isothermal (single-component: red shaded) and two-component (blue) approximations, of the class commonly used with low-energy-resolution instruments lacking the more precise temperature discrimination afforded by the Chandra transmission gratings.
Paper: Landscape of Coronal X-Ray Variability and Cycles
Authors: Thomas Ayres
Figure caption: Schematic FX–FX optimization for selected Cycles members. Shaded overlapping bands indicate predicted FX(out) (on the y-axis) for a CR and error, and parameters of the object, given the set of 〈ECF﹩{\rangle }_{{F}_{{\rm{X}}}}({\rm{in}})﹩ associated with DEM models implicitly depicted on the x-axis as a range of input FX(in). The central red curve in each band is a polynomial fit to the discrete model calculations (dark dots), used to interpolate (or extrapolate) a self-consistent 〈ECF﹩{\rangle }_{{F}_{{\rm{X}}}}﹩ on the 1:1 line where “in” (discrete model) and “out” (calculated) FX agree (red plus sign). Seven Dwarfs noted earlier all are HRC-I; AR Lac is combination of HRC-I and HRC-S; Proxima and AU Mic are Swift XRT. (XMM examples are not provided, but would be similar to Swift.)
Paper: Landscape of Coronal X-Ray Variability and Cycles
Authors: Thomas Ayres
Figure caption: Log-sinusoidal modeling of light curves judged good candidates for cyclic behavior. Thin blue curves trace least-squares fits. Reverse grayscale images are Monte Carlo probability density maps based on quasi-empirical error estimates. Flanking red dotted–dashed curves are ±1σ, to illustrate size of derived uncertainties. Thin dark lines depict slopes of the light curves (quadratic baseline for Sun). Derived period P (in years) and logarithmic semiamplitude A listed at bottom of each panel, on the left and right sides, respectively. Symbols mark different observatories, as in Figure 7. Panel (a): F and G stars, including the Sun (with 13 day binning to better resolve disk-passage of active regions). Panel (b): K-type stars. Alpha Cen B is a hybrid of CXO and scaled XMM. The fit for 61 Cyg B, poorer than the others, illustrates practical limits of modeling procedure. Panel (c): example of low-amplitude time series, K-dwarf planet-host HD 189733. Two provisional solutions are shown. Confidence in either is low, especially for the 3 yr period, given inadequate sampling 2007–2013.
Paper: Landscape of Coronal X-Ray Variability and Cycles
Authors: Thomas Ayres
Figure caption: Hertzsprung–Russell (H-R) diagram of Cycles sample with PARSEC evolutionary tracks. Double curve extending from lower right to upper left is “middle-age” MS: 5 Gyr isochrone for lower masses (≲1M⊙), and 50% total lifetime polychrone for higher-mass, shorter-lived stars. Solid curves are MS/post-MS evolutionary trajectories, annotated by M/M⊙. Dashed curves are pre-MS Hayashi tracks, shown for the Sun and several lower-mass models. Sample members are color-coded by spectral type according to the legend at the upper right, and identified in the bottom inset panel. Those marked green have confirmed (or suspected) X-ray cycles.
Paper: Wide Binary Orbits Are Preferentially Aligned with the Orbits of Small Planets, but Probably Not Hot Jupiters
Authors: Sam Christian, Andrew Vanderburg, Juliette Becker, Adam L. Kraus, Logan Pearce, Karen A. Collins, Malena Rice, Eric L. N. Jensen, David Baker, Valerio Bozza, Paul Benni, Allyson Bieryla, Avraham Binnenfeld, Kevin I. Collins, Dennis M. Conti, Ian J. M. Crossfield, Phil Evans, Marshall C. Johnson, Eric Girardin, Joao Gregorio, Pablo Lewin, Tsevi Mazeh, Felipe Murgas, Aviad Panahi, Francisco J. Pozuelos, Don J. Radford, Howard M. Relles, Fabian Rodriguez Frustaglia, Richard P. Schwarz, Gregor Srdoc, Chris Stockdale, Thiam-Guan Tan, William C. Waalkes, Gavin Wang, Justin Wittrock, Shay Zucker
Figure caption: A similar arrangement to Figures 5(c)–(e), except comparing differences between populations. The relative density difference is calculated as the difference in the normalized density of Figure 5 between two different populations. (a) Binaries with r < 6 R⊕ compared to the control sample; (b) the same as panel (a), but with r > 6 R⊕; (c) comparing r < 6 R⊕ and r > 6 R⊕. For example, darker red in panel (a) indicates relatively more small planets compared to the control sample, while lighter colors mean that the small-planet and control samples have similar densities. The relative biases in the semimajor-axis distributions of large and small planets are apparent in panel (c). Because larger planets are found at farther distances, the semimajor axes of the binary systems they are found in are systematically larger.
Paper: Wide Binary Orbits Are Preferentially Aligned with the Orbits of Small Planets, but Probably Not Hot Jupiters
Authors: Sam Christian, Andrew Vanderburg, Juliette Becker, Adam L. Kraus, Logan Pearce, Karen A. Collins, Malena Rice, Eric L. N. Jensen, David Baker, Valerio Bozza, Paul Benni, Allyson Bieryla, Avraham Binnenfeld, Kevin I. Collins, Dennis M. Conti, Ian J. M. Crossfield, Phil Evans, Marshall C. Johnson, Eric Girardin, Joao Gregorio, Pablo Lewin, Tsevi Mazeh, Felipe Murgas, Aviad Panahi, Francisco J. Pozuelos, Don J. Radford, Howard M. Relles, Fabian Rodriguez Frustaglia, Richard P. Schwarz, Gregor Srdoc, Chris Stockdale, Thiam-Guan Tan, William C. Waalkes, Gavin Wang, Justin Wittrock, Shay Zucker
Figure caption: (a) Plot of median inclination vs. median semimajor axis for binaries with exoplanets from Gaia DR3. Some exoplanets do not have reported radius values and so are represented as maroon squares. Since the error bars on inclination are the 16th and 84th percentiles of ∣90∘ − i∣, while the median values are reported as ﹩| {90}^{\circ }-\bar{i}| ﹩, where ﹩\overline{i}﹩ is the median value of inclination, occasionally an error bar will go under 0∘, in which case we cut it off. (b) The same as panel (a), but for the control sample. (c, d) KDEs of systems with planets that have radii greater than or less than 6 R⊕, respectively. (e) A KDE of the control-sample systems in panel (b). The KDEs are drawn from 1000 random samples from each binary with exoplanets and 200 random samples from each binary in the control sample to reflect the underlying error present in the sampling procedure. The precise difference in the distributions of various distributions is best seen in Figure 6.
Paper: Wide Binary Orbits Are Preferentially Aligned with the Orbits of Small Planets, but Probably Not Hot Jupiters
Authors: Sam Christian, Andrew Vanderburg, Juliette Becker, Adam L. Kraus, Logan Pearce, Karen A. Collins, Malena Rice, Eric L. N. Jensen, David Baker, Valerio Bozza, Paul Benni, Allyson Bieryla, Avraham Binnenfeld, Kevin I. Collins, Dennis M. Conti, Ian J. M. Crossfield, Phil Evans, Marshall C. Johnson, Eric Girardin, Joao Gregorio, Pablo Lewin, Tsevi Mazeh, Felipe Murgas, Aviad Panahi, Francisco J. Pozuelos, Don J. Radford, Howard M. Relles, Fabian Rodriguez Frustaglia, Richard P. Schwarz, Gregor Srdoc, Chris Stockdale, Thiam-Guan Tan, William C. Waalkes, Gavin Wang, Justin Wittrock, Shay Zucker
Figure caption: Four histograms of inclination binned by semimajor axis (left vs. right) and radius (top vs. bottom). The x-axis of each histogram is ∣90∘ − i∣. Orange represents the control sample, while blue represents the sample of binaries with exoplanets. The background color of each plot represents the p-value from the KS test performed between the control sample and the sample with exoplanets. We see strong statistical evidence for alignment in small planets in binary systems with small semimajor axes, but not in any of the other regions.
Paper: Wide Binary Orbits Are Preferentially Aligned with the Orbits of Small Planets, but Probably Not Hot Jupiters
Authors: Sam Christian, Andrew Vanderburg, Juliette Becker, Adam L. Kraus, Logan Pearce, Karen A. Collins, Malena Rice, Eric L. N. Jensen, David Baker, Valerio Bozza, Paul Benni, Allyson Bieryla, Avraham Binnenfeld, Kevin I. Collins, Dennis M. Conti, Ian J. M. Crossfield, Phil Evans, Marshall C. Johnson, Eric Girardin, Joao Gregorio, Pablo Lewin, Tsevi Mazeh, Felipe Murgas, Aviad Panahi, Francisco J. Pozuelos, Don J. Radford, Howard M. Relles, Fabian Rodriguez Frustaglia, Richard P. Schwarz, Gregor Srdoc, Chris Stockdale, Thiam-Guan Tan, William C. Waalkes, Gavin Wang, Justin Wittrock, Shay Zucker
Figure caption: Histogram of the inclination difference between binary orbits and the line of sight (∣90∘ − i∣) for both a sample of binaries with exoplanets and a control sample without known exoplanets. An isotropic distribution of inclinations generated using ﹩p(i)\sim \cos (i)﹩ is also plotted in red. These histograms show our full sample, regardless of the planet radius and binary semimajor axis. Unlike S. Christian et al. (2022), we see no clear evidence for preferential alignment in our full sample. We attribute this to the fact that the S. Christian et al. (2022) sample was primarily composed of small planets, which do show alignment (see Section 4.2.1), while our full sample has many more hot Jupiters, which do not show a preferential alignment.
Paper: Wide Binary Orbits Are Preferentially Aligned with the Orbits of Small Planets, but Probably Not Hot Jupiters
Authors: Sam Christian, Andrew Vanderburg, Juliette Becker, Adam L. Kraus, Logan Pearce, Karen A. Collins, Malena Rice, Eric L. N. Jensen, David Baker, Valerio Bozza, Paul Benni, Allyson Bieryla, Avraham Binnenfeld, Kevin I. Collins, Dennis M. Conti, Ian J. M. Crossfield, Phil Evans, Marshall C. Johnson, Eric Girardin, Joao Gregorio, Pablo Lewin, Tsevi Mazeh, Felipe Murgas, Aviad Panahi, Francisco J. Pozuelos, Don J. Radford, Howard M. Relles, Fabian Rodriguez Frustaglia, Richard P. Schwarz, Gregor Srdoc, Chris Stockdale, Thiam-Guan Tan, William C. Waalkes, Gavin Wang, Justin Wittrock, Shay Zucker
Figure caption: Comparisons of planet radius and parallax distributions from our sample with those of S. Christian et al. (2022). Left: a comparison of the histograms of planet radius in the new and old samples. Right: a comparison of the joint distribution of the parallax and planet size between the sample in this work and that of S. Christian et al. (2022). The significant increase in new giant planets in our sample is primarily due to the K. El-Badry et al. (2021) catalog extending to farther distances (smaller parallaxes) than that of K. El-Badry & H.-W. Rix (2018). Large transiting planets are inherently rarer but easier to detect around more distant/faint stars. In the right panel, the points corresponding to the same systems in the old and new samples do not precisely line up because of the difference of Gaia DR2 and DR3 parallaxes and changes in the TESS planetary radii as new data have been collected.
Paper: Wide Binary Orbits Are Preferentially Aligned with the Orbits of Small Planets, but Probably Not Hot Jupiters
Authors: Sam Christian, Andrew Vanderburg, Juliette Becker, Adam L. Kraus, Logan Pearce, Karen A. Collins, Malena Rice, Eric L. N. Jensen, David Baker, Valerio Bozza, Paul Benni, Allyson Bieryla, Avraham Binnenfeld, Kevin I. Collins, Dennis M. Conti, Ian J. M. Crossfield, Phil Evans, Marshall C. Johnson, Eric Girardin, Joao Gregorio, Pablo Lewin, Tsevi Mazeh, Felipe Murgas, Aviad Panahi, Francisco J. Pozuelos, Don J. Radford, Howard M. Relles, Fabian Rodriguez Frustaglia, Richard P. Schwarz, Gregor Srdoc, Chris Stockdale, Thiam-Guan Tan, William C. Waalkes, Gavin Wang, Justin Wittrock, Shay Zucker
Figure caption: Histogram of the primary companion and secondary companion stellar masses. The primary companion of a binary star system is defined as the star that the exoplanet orbits.
Paper: Search for the Blazhko Effect in Field RR Lyrae Stars Using LINEAR and ZTF Light Curves
Authors: Ema Donev, Željko Ivezić
Figure caption: A selection diagram constructed with the two sets of robust ﹩{\chi }_{\mathrm{dof}}^{2}﹩ values, for LINEAR and ZTF data sets, where the dark blue dots represent all RR Lyrae stars and the circles represent candidate Blazhko stars (color-coded according to the legend, with B_score representing the number of points scored from the selection algorithm). The horizontal and vertical dashed lines help visualize selection boundaries for Blazhko candidates (see text).
Paper: Search for the Blazhko Effect in Field RR Lyrae Stars Using LINEAR and ZTF Light Curves
Authors: Ema Donev, Željko Ivezić
Figure caption: The figure shows selection criteria and the resulting numbers of preselected Blazhko star candidates for each criterion and their combinations (x in LZx corresponds to the number of scored points in the ﹩{\chi }_{\mathrm{dof}}^{2}﹩ vs. ﹩{\chi }_{\mathrm{dof}}^{2}﹩ diagram; see Figure 2). The dots represent each case a star can occupy, where every solid dot is a specific criterion that is satisfied. Connections between solid dots represent stars which satisfy multiple criteria. Each dot combination has its own count, represented by the horizontal countplot. The vertical countplot shows the total number of stars that satisfy one criteria (union of all cases). For example, a total of 116 stars passed the LZ5 criterion, with 14 of them satisfying only χ2 criterion, 33 also had a significant amplitude change, 22 had a significant period difference, and 47 had both a significant period and amplitude difference along with the satisfied χ2 criterion. The sum of all specific cases is 116.
Paper: Search for the Blazhko Effect in Field RR Lyrae Stars Using LINEAR and ZTF Light Curves
Authors: Ema Donev, Željko Ivezić
Figure caption: An example of a Blazhko star (LINEARid = 136668) with LINEAR (top row; period = 0.532923 day) and ZTF (bottom row; period = 0.532929 day) light curves (left panels; data points with “error bars”), phased light curves normalized to the 0–1 range (right panels; data points with “error bars”), with their best-fit models shown by dashed lines. The best-fit period is determined for each data set separately using three Fourier terms. The models shown in the right panels are evaluated with six Fourier terms.
Paper: The Milky Way Project MOBStIRS: Parameterizing Infrared Stellar-wind Bow Shock Morphologies with Citizen Science
Authors: Angelica S. Whisnant, Matthew S. Povich, Nikhil Patten, Henry A. Kobulnicky
Figure caption: Plots of the MOBStIRS citizen science measurements on the Alatude–Planitude parameter plane defined by TH18. The triangles represent asymmetric bow shocks. Top left: symbols colored according to the percent uncertainty in planitude or alatude, whichever was larger. Top right: only points with fractional uncertainty less than the average (20%) of the full data set are plotted. Bottom left: symbols colored according to the percentage of citizen scientists who indicated they were confident with their measurements for a particular bow shock. Bottom right: only points for which >75% of citizen scientists indicated they were confident with their measurement for a particular bow shock are plotted.
Paper: The Milky Way Project MOBStIRS: Parameterizing Infrared Stellar-wind Bow Shock Morphologies with Citizen Science
Authors: Angelica S. Whisnant, Matthew S. Povich, Nikhil Patten, Henry A. Kobulnicky
Figure caption: Plots comparing the R0 value determined by a previous “expert” scientist (x-axes) with the value determined by the citizen scientists (y-axes). The same data are plotted twice, first with axes spanning the full range of data, with a green box showing the area zoomed in for the second plot.
Paper: The Milky Way Project MOBStIRS: Parameterizing Infrared Stellar-wind Bow Shock Morphologies with Citizen Science
Authors: Angelica S. Whisnant, Matthew S. Povich, Nikhil Patten, Henry A. Kobulnicky
Figure caption: Examples of the visual review of R0 measurements overlaid on FITS mosaics from GLIMSPE and MIPSGAL. All images are registered to Galactic coordinates, and all are zoomed to a common size indicated by the scale bars. Circles are centered on the driving star and have radii equal to various measured R0 values: white/red = classifications by individual citizen scientists indicating “yes!”/“not really” on the final classification question; yellow = R0(CS) the sigma-clipped mean value of all citizen science classifications; and green = R0(pre), the previous measurement by an individual “expert” scientist.
Paper: The Milky Way Project MOBStIRS: Parameterizing Infrared Stellar-wind Bow Shock Morphologies with Citizen Science
Authors: Angelica S. Whisnant, Matthew S. Povich, Nikhil Patten, Henry A. Kobulnicky
Figure caption: Example MOBStIRS JPEG image cutouts of IR bow shocks created using 24 μm data from MIPSGAL (red), and 8.0 μm and 4.5 μm from GLIMPSE (green and blue, respectively). Overlays show reasonable classification drawings using the Zooniverse Box (green) and Circle (yellow) tools. These examples were included in the tutorial.
Paper: The Milky Way Project MOBStIRS: Parameterizing Infrared Stellar-wind Bow Shock Morphologies with Citizen Science
Authors: Angelica S. Whisnant, Matthew S. Povich, Nikhil Patten, Henry A. Kobulnicky
Figure caption: Plots comparing the values of R90 for the original and flipped versions for the 361 IR bow shocks with both measurements (flag O+F = 2 in Table 2). The colored lines show the labeled values of ﹩| {\delta }_{{R}_{90}}| ﹩ calculated using Equation (4). As in Figure 4 first plot has axes spanning the full range of data, with a green box showing the area zoomed in for the second plot.