adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: An Eccentric Sub-Neptune Moving Into the Evaporation Desert 
Authors: Sydney A. Jenkins, Andrew Vanderburg, Ritika Sethi, Sarah Millholland, Joseph E. Rodriguez, Luca Fossati, Andreas Krenn, Emily Pass, Alexander Venner, R. Paul Butler, Hugh Osborn, Aaron Householder, Carl Ziegler, Juliette Becker, Perry Berlind, Allyson Bieryla, Christopher Broeg, Michael L. Calkins, Jeffrey D. Crane, Tansu Daylan, Julien de Wit, Jason D. Eastman, David Ehrenreich, Gilbert A. Esquerdo, Michael Fausnaugh, Yadira Gaibor, David W. Latham, Monika Lendl, Andrew W. Mayo, Gaetano Scandariato, Steve Shectman, Stephanie Striegel, Johanna Teske, Thomas G Wilson
Figure caption: Posterior distribution of the potential outer companion’s mass and orbital separation. The heat map corresponds to constraints allowed by the RV acceleration under a simple zero-eccentricity model (described in Section 5.2). The region ruled out by the absence of a significant astrometric signal is highlighted in blue. Further observations are needed to determine whether there is an additional planet in this system.
Paper: An Eccentric Sub-Neptune Moving Into the Evaporation Desert 
Authors: Sydney A. Jenkins, Andrew Vanderburg, Ritika Sethi, Sarah Millholland, Joseph E. Rodriguez, Luca Fossati, Andreas Krenn, Emily Pass, Alexander Venner, R. Paul Butler, Hugh Osborn, Aaron Householder, Carl Ziegler, Juliette Becker, Perry Berlind, Allyson Bieryla, Christopher Broeg, Michael L. Calkins, Jeffrey D. Crane, Tansu Daylan, Julien de Wit, Jason D. Eastman, David Ehrenreich, Gilbert A. Esquerdo, Michael Fausnaugh, Yadira Gaibor, David W. Latham, Monika Lendl, Andrew W. Mayo, Gaetano Scandariato, Steve Shectman, Stephanie Striegel, Johanna Teske, Thomas G Wilson
Figure caption: TTVs calculated for 17 transit events observed with TESS. TTVs are measured relative to the linear ephemeris calculated using values listed in Table A2. We do not observe any significant variations in the TTV data.
Paper: Different Inhomogeneous Evolutionary Histories for Uranus and Neptune
Authors: Roberto Tejada Arevalo
Figure caption: Evolution of the temperature (top row) and density profiles (bottom row) of Uranus (left) and Neptune (right) as a function of pressure. Top: the outer regions of Uranus (≲1 kbar, 0.92 MP) cool, while the interior maintains its initial heat. As a result, the interior temperature does not escape the outer boundary layer. In contrast, Neptune experiences more vigorous convective mixing, leading to the outer boundary layer mixing after 0.5 Gyr. After this mixing event (labeled in the top right), the outer 40% of Neptune’s structure cools adiabatically. Alongside the profiles, the phase diagram boundaries between the supercritical and solid states for methane, ammonia, and water are plotted. The water phase boundaries were gathered from M. Millot et al. (2018). The blue dotted line indicates the miscibility curve at which H2 and water are predicted to phase-separate (A. Gupta et al. 2025). The miscibility curves are adapted to the local thermodynamic conditions (pressure, temperature, Z) of each structure at 4.56 Gyr. The black dashed melt curve of ammonia was gathered by J. A. Queyroux et al. (2019) and extended to low pressures via the Simon–Glatzel melting curve fit for ammonia (S. Ninet & F. Datchi 2008), shown in solid black. The methane melting curve is from M. S. Somayazulu et al. (1996) as cited by R. Bini & G. Pratesi (1997). The interior heat of Uranus escapes inefficiently via conduction through the outer composition gradient. On the other hand, Neptune’s outer layers convectively mix and cool to temperatures below the freezing temperatures and pressures of water at the Ice X phase. Both planets intercept the H2–H2O miscibility curve of A. Gupta et al. (2025), implying that water and hydrogen may phase-separate in both planets. Bottom: the density profile evolution of Uranus changes only in the outer regions. Once Neptune’s outer Z gradient mixes, the interior increases in density as it cools adiabatically. The gray dashed line indicates mass as a function of pressure. The blue and brown lines indicate normalized radius as a function of pressure at the corresponding color age (0 and 4.56 Gyr).
Paper: Different Inhomogeneous Evolutionary Histories for Uranus and Neptune
Authors: Roberto Tejada Arevalo
Figure caption: Evolution of Uranus-mass models with initial interior entropies (Si) ranging between 3 and 3.9 kB baryon−1. The top row shows the initial and present-age profiles of the entropy (left), heavy-element abundance (center), and temperature (right). The bottom row shows the evolution of the effective temperature and intrinsic flux (left), radius and outer Z (center), and J2, J4 (left). The magenta, blue, and green models preserve an outer Z profile gradient, keeping interior temperatures high, displaying larger radii, and leading to low outer intrinsic fluxes. The orange and red models are the hottest and do not preserve an outer composition gradient. The red model mixes almost entirely by 0.3 Gyr and the orange by 0.4 Gyr. This mixing event causes an ephemeral yet dramatic increase in effective temperature, luminosity, and radius. Note that while the green model achieve similarly high final luminosities (center left), it evolves to different radii (green is inflated). This is discussed and further visualized in Appendix B. Models at or higher than the initial interior entropy of ∼3.7 convectively mix the outer regions. The heat escape subsequent to convective mixing yields smaller radii (bottom center) and higher final intrinsic fluxes (bottom right). The evolution of the outer heavy-element abundance of the red model increases from the initial 25% to 78% by mass during the mixing event (dashed lines, bottom center). The evolution of J2 and J4 is significantly different from models that do not mix (bottom right).
Paper: Different Inhomogeneous Evolutionary Histories for Uranus and Neptune
Authors: Roberto Tejada Arevalo
Figure caption: Evolution of various quantities of the Uranus (left) and Neptune (right) models shown in Figure 4. The evolution of the radius and the outer Z abundance is shown in the top row, the effective temperature and intrinsic flux are shown in the middle row, and gravity harmonics are shown in the bottom row. The initial outer Z abundances of the Uranus and Neptune models are 0.35 and 0.25 by mass, and the final abundances are 0.36 and 0.78 by mass. The initial metallicities of these models are the result of the parameter search described in Section 4. The internal luminosity of Uranus considered here is between the medians of J. C. Pearl & B. J. Conrath (1991) and P. G. J. Irwin et al. (2025), shown in red. There are no updated luminosity measurements of Neptune since those measured by J. C. Pearl & B. J. Conrath (1991). The 1σ and 2σ errors of the intrinsic flux from J. C. Pearl & B. J. Conrath (1991) are shown in red and gray in the center right panel. The model gravity harmonics of Uranus are compared with the updated J2 and J4 measurements of R. A. Jacobson (2014), since the uncertainties of their J4 measurements are an order of magnitude smaller than those of R. A. Jacobson (2014). The Neptunian J4 uncertainties from R. A. Jacobson (2009) are significant. The Uranus model evolves to within 10% of the current Uranus observations within 0.6 Gyr, while the outer composition profile of the Neptune model convectively mixes at ∼0.5 Gyr. The sudden mixing in Neptune’s envelope leads to the abrupt release of internal energy, heating up the envelope. Once heated, the outer envelope cools adiabatically. This access to internal heat postmixing lends Neptune a luminosity boost, keeping its luminosity higher relative to Uranus.
Paper: Different Inhomogeneous Evolutionary Histories for Uranus and Neptune
Authors: Roberto Tejada Arevalo
Figure caption: Present-age density profiles of the Uranus and Neptune models (thick black lines) presented in Section 4 compared with models from the literature (colored lines; N. Nettelmann et al. 2013; VH20; B. A. Neuenschwander & R. Helled 2022; U. Malamud et al. 2024; B. A. Neuenschwander et al. 2024). Of these, only the Uranus models of N. Nettelmann et al. (2013) and A. Vazan & R. Helled (2020) are the result of evolutionary calculations. Others are static inferences. Since these authors produce multiple models with varying of water/rock compositions, we indicate which are plotted in parentheses. Our Uranus models are consistent with literature results. There are fewer Neptune density profiles in the literature, but ours is consistent with the Neptune model of N. Nettelmann et al. (2013). B. A. Neuenschwander & R. Helled (2022) produced their models using so-called “empirical” EOSs, while U. Malamud et al. (2024) showed only an example profile instead of a preferred model. The red dashed density profiles are those of N. Nettelmann et al. (2013). Our models are overall less dense than the three-layer models of N. Nettelmann et al. (2013) due to their higher interior temperatures and ice mixtures.
Paper: Different Inhomogeneous Evolutionary Histories for Uranus and Neptune
Authors: Roberto Tejada Arevalo
Figure caption: Isentropes of EOS mixtures compared at different entropies, denoted by different colors, for Z = 0.8 and Y/(X + Y) = 0.277 using the G. Chabrier & F. Debras (2021) H–He EOS. The solid and dashed lines differentiate between H–He water mixtures and H–He–ice mixtures, respectively, with the ice mixture being at the measured 4:1:7 solar ratio of methane, water, and ammonia (M. Asplund et al. 2009; M. Bethkenhagen et al. 2017). The selected pressure range and entropy values are most relevant for the interior of Uranus and Neptune. Top: the temperature as a function of pressure of a pure-water mixture is significantly hotter (∼4000 K at 10 Mbar) than that of ice mixtures at a particular entropy. Bottom: densities as a function of pressure. The densities of the ice mixture are greater than the pure-water mixture due to their lower temperatures at a constant entropy for pressures lower than ∼1 Mbar. These differences show that pure water with H–He is not a close approximation to an ice mixture with H–He.
Paper: Different Inhomogeneous Evolutionary Histories for Uranus and Neptune
Authors: Roberto Tejada Arevalo
Figure caption: Example of postformation heavy-element profiles (Z) of Uranus and Neptune from VH22, adapted to be shown as a function of the enclosed mass grid from their Figure 1. The formation models of both planets show a steep, outer Z profile gradient. Interior to this, the formation profiles show several stabilizing Z gradients. The homogeneous sections of the Uranus and Neptune formation profiles are likely convective zones (VH22). Guided by these models, we place three convective zones in the initial profiles used in this study.
Paper: CECILIA: Ultradeep Rest-optical Spectra of Faint Galaxies at Cosmic Noon
Authors: Menelaos Raptis, Ryan F. Trainor, Allison L. Strom, Gwen C. Rudie, Noah S. J. Rogers, Charles C. Steidel, Michael V. Maseda, Caroline von Raesfeld, Nathalie A. Korhonen Cuestas
Figure caption: Left: N2-BPT diagram (J. A. Baldwin et al. 1981) with SDSS z ∼ 0 galaxies (gray, contour lines), KBSS LBGs (S17; gray dots with 3σ detections for every line), a lensed dwarf galaxy (T. Gburek et al. 2019), stacks of faint LAEs (T16; J. Matthee et al. 2021; M. V. Maseda et al. 2023), stack of high-z galaxies (R. L. Sanders et al. 2023), and the CECILIA stack of faint galaxies (pink point). The solid black line is the classification curve used by G. Kauffmann et al. (2003) as a lower limit for finding AGNs. The dashed box highlights the region shown in the zoomed-in version. Right: zoomed-in N2-BPT diagram showing individual CECILIA faint galaxies (pink points; 2σ limits, with squares indicating fLBGs), the z ∼ 3 SF galaxy D40 observed with JWST/NIRSpec as part of the CECILIA program (purple point), and individual data points from M. V. Maseda et al. (2023).
Paper: CECILIA: Ultradeep Rest-optical Spectra of Faint Galaxies at Cosmic Noon
Authors: Menelaos Raptis, Ryan F. Trainor, Allison L. Strom, Gwen C. Rudie, Noah S. J. Rogers, Charles C. Steidel, Michael V. Maseda, Caroline von Raesfeld, Nathalie A. Korhonen Cuestas
Figure caption: S2-BPT (S. Veilleux & D. E. Osterbrock 1987) showing SDSS z ∼ 0 galaxies (gray contour lines), KBSS LBGs (S17; gray dots with 3σ detections for every line), a stack of high-z galaxies from R. L. Sanders et al. (2023), CECILIA faint LAEs (pink circles with 2σ limits), CECILIA D40 (purple circle), a Lyman-break galaxy from A. J. Cameron et al. (2023), and CECILIA faint LBGs (pink squares). The solid black line is the classification curve used by L. J. Kewley et al. (2001) to divide the theoretical starburst region from objects of other types of excitation.
Paper: CECILIA: Ultradeep Rest-optical Spectra of Faint Galaxies at Cosmic Noon
Authors: Menelaos Raptis, Ryan F. Trainor, Allison L. Strom, Gwen C. Rudie, Noah S. J. Rogers, Charles C. Steidel, Michael V. Maseda, Caroline von Raesfeld, Nathalie A. Korhonen Cuestas
Figure caption: The rest-frame NIRSpec spectrum of Q2343-NB2929. Top: 2D spectrogram of the source, with key emission lines denoted by red vertical lines. The panel on its right shows the 1D spatial distribution of the emission lines (orange line) and the Gaussian fit used for optimal extraction. Middle: full spectral range of the G235M spectrum for the source. Dashed lines and pink shaded bands indicate the positions of emission lines highlighted in the bottom panels. The 1D extracted spectrum is shown in purple. Bottom: the zoom-in panels of key spectral features. The Gaussian+linear continuum fit to the emission lines is shown in blue, and the error is shown as a gray region.
Paper: CECILIA: Ultradeep Rest-optical Spectra of Faint Galaxies at Cosmic Noon
Authors: Menelaos Raptis, Ryan F. Trainor, Allison L. Strom, Gwen C. Rudie, Noah S. J. Rogers, Charles C. Steidel, Michael V. Maseda, Caroline von Raesfeld, Nathalie A. Korhonen Cuestas
Figure caption: The rest-frame NIRSpec G235M stack spectrum (NB, fLBGs, and serendipitous sources). The purple line represents the 1D extracted spectrum, while the blue line illustrates the Gaussian+linear continuum fit to the emission lines. The gray shaded area indicates the error margin. A horizontal dashed black line at y = 0 marks the zero level. Black dashed vertical lines indicate the positions of key spectral features—most of which are shown in the bottom panels—as well as emission lines with >2σ detections. Individual spectra are normalized by their integrated Hα flux prior to stacking. The resulting stacked spectrum is then rescaled such that the Hα peak of the fit model has a value of 100, allowing all other emission line peaks to be expressed as percentages of the Hα peak.
Paper: CECILIA: Ultradeep Rest-optical Spectra of Faint Galaxies at Cosmic Noon
Authors: Menelaos Raptis, Ryan F. Trainor, Allison L. Strom, Gwen C. Rudie, Noah S. J. Rogers, Charles C. Steidel, Michael V. Maseda, Caroline von Raesfeld, Nathalie A. Korhonen Cuestas
Figure caption: Log(SFR) vs. E(B − V) for the CECILIA faint sample (pink circles), the T16 KBSS-Lyα stack point (brown circle), and KBSS LBGs from S17 (gray circles). The horizontal dashed pink line indicates the median SFR of the CECILIA faint sample, while the dashed black line marks the median SFR for the KBSS points. A positive correlation is seen between dust attenuation and SFR across the samples.
Paper: CECILIA: Ultradeep Rest-optical Spectra of Faint Galaxies at Cosmic Noon
Authors: Menelaos Raptis, Ryan F. Trainor, Allison L. Strom, Gwen C. Rudie, Noah S. J. Rogers, Charles C. Steidel, Michael V. Maseda, Caroline von Raesfeld, Nathalie A. Korhonen Cuestas
Figure caption: Flux correction functions fcorr(λ) for galaxies in the overall CECILIA sample with well-measured SEDs, below-median luminosities, and below-median sizes. The black curves show the individual flux correction functions for these galaxies, while the thick orange curve shows the average flux correction function, constructed as the arithmetic mean of the individual fcorr(λ) curves.
Paper: CECILIA: Ultradeep Rest-optical Spectra of Faint Galaxies at Cosmic Noon
Authors: Menelaos Raptis, Ryan F. Trainor, Allison L. Strom, Gwen C. Rudie, Noah S. J. Rogers, Charles C. Steidel, Michael V. Maseda, Caroline von Raesfeld, Nathalie A. Korhonen Cuestas
Figure caption: The rest-frame NIRSpec stack spectrum for the G395M segment. The spectrum is presented using the same scaling as in Figure 3.
Paper: Worlds Next Door: A Candidate Giant Planet Imaged in the Habitable Zone of α Centauri A. I. Observations, Orbital and Physical Properties, and Exozodi Upper Limits
Authors: Charles Beichman, Aniket Sanghi, Dimitri Mawet, Pierre Kervella, Kevin Wagner, Billy Quarles, Jack J. Lissauer, Max Sommer, Mark Wyatt, Nicolas Godoy, William O. Balmer, Laurent Pueyo, Jorge Llop-Sayson, Jonathan Aguilar, Rachel Akeson, Ruslan Belikov, Anthony Boccaletti, Elodie Choquet, Edward Fomalont, Thomas Henning, Dean Hines, Renyu Hu, Pierre-Olivier Lagage, Jarron Leisenring, James Mang, Michael Ressler, Eugene Serabyn, Pascal Tremblin, Marie Ygouf, Mantas Zilinskas
Figure caption: The planet candidate is initialized using the mean values from Table 4 with KRV < 3 m s−1, where the color-coded points denote the planet candidate with a prograde (blue/cyan) or retrograde (red/magenta) orbit. The top panel shows the lifetime t99 when 99% of the test particles are unstable, while the bottom panel measures the fraction of stable particles for a given initial semimajor axis. The triangles denote upper limits for the stable fraction due to the finite number of trials (360) per semimajor axis. The light green region denotes the optimistic HZ, while the dark green represents the more conservative HZ.
Paper: Worlds Next Door: A Candidate Giant Planet Imaged in the Habitable Zone of α Centauri A. I. Observations, Orbital and Physical Properties, and Exozodi Upper Limits
Authors: Charles Beichman, Aniket Sanghi, Dimitri Mawet, Pierre Kervella, Kevin Wagner, Billy Quarles, Jack J. Lissauer, Max Sommer, Mark Wyatt, Nicolas Godoy, William O. Balmer, Laurent Pueyo, Jorge Llop-Sayson, Jonathan Aguilar, Rachel Akeson, Ruslan Belikov, Anthony Boccaletti, Elodie Choquet, Edward Fomalont, Thomas Henning, Dean Hines, Renyu Hu, Pierre-Olivier Lagage, Jarron Leisenring, James Mang, Michael Ressler, Eugene Serabyn, Pascal Tremblin, Marie Ygouf, Mantas Zilinskas
Figure caption: Range of (true) star–planet separations (top) and instantaneous temperatures (bottom) for a planetary ring with AB = 0.1, no thermal inertia, and f = 1, seen at the epochs of S1 (left) and C1 (right) based on the stable orbits consistent with the nondetections in the prograde a < 2 au family as described in Section 4. The mean value of each distribution is marked with a dashed line and noted with the standard deviation in the top right corner of each panel.
Paper: Worlds Next Door: A Candidate Giant Planet Imaged in the Habitable Zone of α Centauri A. I. Observations, Orbital and Physical Properties, and Exozodi Upper Limits
Authors: Charles Beichman, Aniket Sanghi, Dimitri Mawet, Pierre Kervella, Kevin Wagner, Billy Quarles, Jack J. Lissauer, Max Sommer, Mark Wyatt, Nicolas Godoy, William O. Balmer, Laurent Pueyo, Jorge Llop-Sayson, Jonathan Aguilar, Rachel Akeson, Ruslan Belikov, Anthony Boccaletti, Elodie Choquet, Edward Fomalont, Thomas Henning, Dean Hines, Renyu Hu, Pierre-Olivier Lagage, Jarron Leisenring, James Mang, Michael Ressler, Eugene Serabyn, Pascal Tremblin, Marie Ygouf, Mantas Zilinskas
Figure caption: A prediction for the location of S1 based on the family of dynamically stable orbits for S1 + C1 consistent with the nondetections in 2025 suggests that S1 will be well positioned for recovery in 2026 August. Left: predicted position in sky coordinates. The approximate orientation of the 4QPM transition boundaries at the selected example observation date is shown as a shaded region. The dashed circle marks a 0﹩\mathop{.}\limits^{^{\prime\prime} }﹩75 separation. Right: histogram of the predicted separation of S1 in 2026 August for the two orbital semimajor axis families. A dashed line marks a 0﹩\mathop{.}\limits^{^{\prime\prime} }﹩75 separation. The a < 2 au orbits constitute a greater fraction of the total number of orbits and are also favored based on photometric modeling in Section 5.
Paper: Worlds Next Door: A Candidate Giant Planet Imaged in the Habitable Zone of α Centauri A. I. Observations, Orbital and Physical Properties, and Exozodi Upper Limits
Authors: Charles Beichman, Aniket Sanghi, Dimitri Mawet, Pierre Kervella, Kevin Wagner, Billy Quarles, Jack J. Lissauer, Max Sommer, Mark Wyatt, Nicolas Godoy, William O. Balmer, Laurent Pueyo, Jorge Llop-Sayson, Jonathan Aguilar, Rachel Akeson, Ruslan Belikov, Anthony Boccaletti, Elodie Choquet, Edward Fomalont, Thomas Henning, Dean Hines, Renyu Hu, Pierre-Olivier Lagage, Jarron Leisenring, James Mang, Michael Ressler, Eugene Serabyn, Pascal Tremblin, Marie Ygouf, Mantas Zilinskas
Figure caption: Left: orbit of α Cen B relative to α Cen A showing one epoch of Hipparcos and two epochs of ALMA data. Center: zoom-in view showing the ALMA data. Top right: the difference between the parallax effect as seen from Earth and from JWST at L2. Bottom right: the uncertainty in position of α Cen as a function of year before and after the addition of the new 2023 ALMA observations.
Paper: Worlds Next Door: A Candidate Giant Planet Imaged in the Habitable Zone of α Centauri A. I. Observations, Orbital and Physical Properties, and Exozodi Upper Limits
Authors: Charles Beichman, Aniket Sanghi, Dimitri Mawet, Pierre Kervella, Kevin Wagner, Billy Quarles, Jack J. Lissauer, Max Sommer, Mark Wyatt, Nicolas Godoy, William O. Balmer, Laurent Pueyo, Jorge Llop-Sayson, Jonathan Aguilar, Rachel Akeson, Ruslan Belikov, Anthony Boccaletti, Elodie Choquet, Edward Fomalont, Thomas Henning, Dean Hines, Renyu Hu, Pierre-Olivier Lagage, Jarron Leisenring, James Mang, Michael Ressler, Eugene Serabyn, Pascal Tremblin, Marie Ygouf, Mantas Zilinskas
Figure caption: BB emission from a circumplanetary ring for a total cross-sectional area equivalent to the half the face-on cross-sectional area of Saturn’s rings together with a fiducial planet atmospheric model (Teff = 225 K, log g = 3.0 dex, [M/H] = +1.0, C/O = 1.5, and Rp =  1 RJup). Each component contributing to the total model VLT/NEAR and F1550C flux (squares) is shown. There are two BB components as the ring temperature is different for each detection epoch, depending on the planet–star separation in Figure 14.
Paper: Worlds Next Door: A Candidate Giant Planet Imaged in the Habitable Zone of α Centauri A. I. Observations, Orbital and Physical Properties, and Exozodi Upper Limits
Authors: Charles Beichman, Aniket Sanghi, Dimitri Mawet, Pierre Kervella, Kevin Wagner, Billy Quarles, Jack J. Lissauer, Max Sommer, Mark Wyatt, Nicolas Godoy, William O. Balmer, Laurent Pueyo, Jorge Llop-Sayson, Jonathan Aguilar, Rachel Akeson, Ruslan Belikov, Anthony Boccaletti, Elodie Choquet, Edward Fomalont, Thomas Henning, Dean Hines, Renyu Hu, Pierre-Olivier Lagage, Jarron Leisenring, James Mang, Michael Ressler, Eugene Serabyn, Pascal Tremblin, Marie Ygouf, Mantas Zilinskas
Figure caption: Teff = 225 K atmospheric models consistent with the S1 + C1 photometry (within 1σ) for a radius < 1.2 RJup.