adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: A Multiwavelength Investigation of Spiral Structures in z > 1 Galaxies with JWST
Authors: Boris S. Kalita, Si-Yue Yu, John D. Silverman, Emanuele Daddi, Luis C. Ho, Andreas L. Faisst, Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky, Annagrazia Puglisi, Simon Birrer, Daichi Kashino, Xuheng Ding, Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe, Zhaoxuan Liu, Darshan Kakkad, Francesco Valentino, Olivier Ilbert, Georgios Magdis, Arianna S. Long, Shuowen Jin, Anton M. Koekemoer, Richard Massey
Figure caption: (Left) Positive color offsets in ID 732171: (top panels) residual F150W and F444W images after bulge and disk subtraction, with spiral arm paths overplotted and expected propagation direction indicated by arrows. The first image on the top left also shows examples of the masks perpendicular to the arm used for flux measurements, with the longer edge being the length of the mask. (Lower panels) Flux distribution (all distributions at same flux scale) across each arm and along the length of the masks, with F150W in blue and F444W in red, for the first 16 pixels (∼4 kpc) along the arms starting from the center of the galaxy (marked with “x”). The distributions show clear positive offsets, with blue generally preceding red. The same arm propagation direction defines the x-axis (in kiloparsecs, calculated for z = 1.5) ordering. The y-axis corresponds to the measurement bins along the arms, representing radial distance from the galaxy center in kiloparsecs. The first 16 iterations, with 2 pixel steps, are shown for each arm. (Right) Negative color offsets in ID 662400: The same information, but for a case showing negative offsets. The blue F150W flux distribution generally trails behind the red F444W distribution.
Paper: A Multiwavelength Investigation of Spiral Structures in z > 1 Galaxies with JWST
Authors: Boris S. Kalita, Si-Yue Yu, John D. Silverman, Emanuele Daddi, Luis C. Ho, Andreas L. Faisst, Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky, Annagrazia Puglisi, Simon Birrer, Daichi Kashino, Xuheng Ding, Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe, Zhaoxuan Liu, Darshan Kakkad, Francesco Valentino, Olivier Ilbert, Georgios Magdis, Arianna S. Long, Shuowen Jin, Anton M. Koekemoer, Richard Massey
Figure caption: Locating the spiral arms: the deprojected residual F444W images (first column), the same image with only the m = 2–4 components (second column), the GALFIT best-fit model for the disk+spiral components with the spiral arms amplified (as discussed in Section 3.2; third column), and the segmentation regions created out of the model (fourth column) for each galaxy in our sample. The segmentation maps will be used to trace the location of each spiral arm. The red circles in the middle and right panels denote the bulge (effective radius), which has been excluded. The outer circle in the third panel shows the radial limit of the analysis, which is twice the disk effective radius.
Paper: A Multiwavelength Investigation of Spiral Structures in z > 1 Galaxies with JWST
Authors: Boris S. Kalita, Si-Yue Yu, John D. Silverman, Emanuele Daddi, Luis C. Ho, Andreas L. Faisst, Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky, Annagrazia Puglisi, Simon Birrer, Daichi Kashino, Xuheng Ding, Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe, Zhaoxuan Liu, Darshan Kakkad, Francesco Valentino, Olivier Ilbert, Georgios Magdis, Arianna S. Long, Shuowen Jin, Anton M. Koekemoer, Richard Massey
Figure caption: Maximum offset distribution: the normalized number distribution of the maximum offset between the F150W and F444W flux distributions across the spiral arms in our sample. For our sample, Ngalaxy = 8. The x-axis is shown in kiloparsecs (for z = 1.5). We create this histogram by randomly sampling values (1000 times) within the 1σ error margins for each maximum offset measurement. The total uncertainty of our method is estimated to be ∼0.13 kpc, so values within 0 ± 0.13 kpc (region in red) are considered to indicate no offset.
Paper: A Multiwavelength Investigation of Spiral Structures in z > 1 Galaxies with JWST
Authors: Boris S. Kalita, Si-Yue Yu, John D. Silverman, Emanuele Daddi, Luis C. Ho, Andreas L. Faisst, Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky, Annagrazia Puglisi, Simon Birrer, Daichi Kashino, Xuheng Ding, Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe, Zhaoxuan Liu, Darshan Kakkad, Francesco Valentino, Olivier Ilbert, Georgios Magdis, Arianna S. Long, Shuowen Jin, Anton M. Koekemoer, Richard Massey
Figure caption: Radial distribution of offsets: the radial variation of the offset between the peaks of the F150W and F444W flux distributions across the spiral arms for the galaxies shown in Figure 4—IDs 732171 (left) and 662400 (right). The corresponding shaded regions indicate the 1σ uncertainties. The stars show the data point taken as the maximum offset value, determined using the maximum absolute value and the corresponding uncertainty.
Paper: A Multiwavelength Investigation of Spiral Structures in z > 1 Galaxies with JWST
Authors: Boris S. Kalita, Si-Yue Yu, John D. Silverman, Emanuele Daddi, Luis C. Ho, Andreas L. Faisst, Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky, Annagrazia Puglisi, Simon Birrer, Daichi Kashino, Xuheng Ding, Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe, Zhaoxuan Liu, Darshan Kakkad, Francesco Valentino, Olivier Ilbert, Georgios Magdis, Arianna S. Long, Shuowen Jin, Anton M. Koekemoer, Richard Massey
Figure caption: The model-based spiral skeletons overlaid on the deprojected residual F444W images of the galaxies in our sample.
Paper: The Energy Sharing Timescale in an Analytic Framework for Common Envelope Hydrodynamics
Authors: Rosa Wallace Everson, Morgan MacLeod, Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz
Figure caption: Representative examples of ejection parameter ξ and β in three types of CE systems. Dark-blue curves denote the change in orbital energy ΔEorb with respect to r normalized by the local value of modified gravitational binding energy Egrav,SE (Equation (5)). Shaded blue regions represent where the energy criterion for ejection of the stellar envelope outside of location r − Ra is met. Rose curves denote the ratio of the inspiral timescale to the shock heating timescale integrated using the HLA (dotted) and CE drag formalism (solid) prescriptions, with shaded pink regions representing where the hydrodynamical criterion for sufficient ejection is met according to the CE drag formalism. The core of the primary is shown in gray as defined by hydrogen mass fraction XH < 0.1, with expected pre-CE mass loss denoted by the dotted outer region. Left: a merger progenitor system with TAMS primary of 17.8 M⊙ and mass ratio 0.1, as used for the merger simulations of T. Hutchinson-Smith et al. (2024) and R. W. Everson et al. (2024). Middle: a BNS progenitor system with a 12.5 M⊙ red supergiant with mass ratio 0.15, as used for the BNS progenitor CE simulations of J. A. P. Law-Smith et al. (2020). Right: a BBH progenitor system with an AGB primary of 80 M⊙ and a mass ratio of 0.4.
Paper: Stellar Contamination Correction Using Back-to-back Transits of TRAPPIST-1 b and c
Authors: Alexander D. Rathcke, Lars A. Buchhave, Julien de Wit, Benjamin V. Rackham, Prune C. August, Hannah Diamond-Lowe, João M. MendonÇa, Aaron Bello-Arufe, Mercedes López-Morales, Daniel Kitzmann, Kevin Heng
Figure caption: Out-of-transit stellar spectra and model fits. Top row: mean stellar spectrum for all out-of-transit data (Sall, which combines the S1 through S5 stellar spectra, as defined by the out-of-transit segments shown in Figure 1) alongside the 1-component (left) and 2-component (right) model fits (﹩{\bar{M}}_{{\rm{all}}}﹩). Both fits are qualitatively similar, as are the more complex models we tested. Second row: observed spectra (S1 to S5), shown as differences relative to Sall (colored points, binned in wavelengths for visual clarity), and model fits (﹩{\bar{M}}_{1}﹩ to ﹩{\bar{M}}_{5}﹩) relative to ﹩{\bar{M}}_{{\rm{all}}}﹩ (solid colored lines). Third row: same as the second row, but normalized at each wavelength to highlight relative changes. Bottom row: histograms of the posterior sample distributions for covering fractions in the 2-component fits. While the temperatures do not vary with time, the posterior estimates of the covering fractions evince a trend in which the covering fraction of the cool component (f1) increases over the observations, reaching a maximum after the transits, and then decreases in the last time segment. This is consistent with the stellar brightness variations.
Paper: Stellar Contamination Correction Using Back-to-back Transits of TRAPPIST-1 b and c
Authors: Alexander D. Rathcke, Lars A. Buchhave, Julien de Wit, Benjamin V. Rackham, Prune C. August, Hannah Diamond-Lowe, João M. MendonÇa, Aaron Bello-Arufe, Mercedes López-Morales, Daniel Kitzmann, Kevin Heng
Figure caption: Normalized white-light curves of TRAPPIST-1 c and TRAPPIST-1 b observed with JWST/NIRSpec PRISM during their quasi-simultaneous transits on 2024 July 9. Top panel: a schematic of the geometry of the quasi-simultaneous transits is displayed at the top. The blue circles represent the data points after removing the systematics model (a combination of a linear slope and a Gaussian process; see Section 3.2). The solid black line indicates the fitted transit model. The data have been binned in time from the original 10,208 integrations to the 341 points shown here to accommodate the computation of the Gaussian process systematics model. Horizontal lines labeled S1 through S5 mark the time bins used in the out-of-transit stellar analysis (see Section 3.1). The inset displays a histogram of the residuals after subtracting the combined transit and systematics model, compared to a Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation equal to the mean measurement error plus a fitted white noise term. Bottom panel: residuals after subtracting both the transit and systematic models.
Paper: The Energy Sharing Timescale in an Analytic Framework for Common Envelope Hydrodynamics
Authors: Rosa Wallace Everson, Morgan MacLeod, Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz
Figure caption: Integrated results for the HLA (top) and CE drag formalism (bottom) prescriptions in the ξ−β parameter space for three representative example CE binaries: a merger progenitor of a TAMS 17.8 M⊙ star with secondary q = 0.1 (green), a BNS progenitor of 12.5 M⊙ with secondary q = 0.15 (purple), and a BBH progenitor of 80 M⊙ and secondary q = 0.4 (dark plum). Dotted lines denote pre-CE mass loss, solid lines denote integrated CE inspiral, and stars denote the core boundary where integration was stopped.
Paper: The Energy Sharing Timescale in an Analytic Framework for Common Envelope Hydrodynamics
Authors: Rosa Wallace Everson, Morgan MacLeod, Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz
Figure caption: Simulation results from 3D hydrodynamical models of two CE binaries in the ξ−β parameter space. A high-resolution core-resolved model of the merger of a 1.57 M⊙ neutron star with a TAMS 17.8 M⊙ primary is shown in green, based on the setup of T. Hutchinson-Smith et al. (2024) and R. W. Everson et al. (2024). A high-resolution core-resolved model of a successful CE ejection with a 1.4 M⊙ neutron star and a 12 M⊙ red supergiant stripped to 10 R⊙ is shown in purple, based on the setup of J. A. P. Law-Smith et al. (2020). Solid lines denote calculations from simulated inspiral, dotted lines denote calculations from integrated inspiral in nonsimulated regions, and stars denote the final position of the secondary: central in the case of the merger, and circularized at  ≈2 R⊙ in the case of the BNS progenitor.
Paper: Production, Transport, and Destruction of Dust in the Kuiper Belt: The Effects of Refractory and Volatile Grain Compositions
Authors: Thomas Corbett, Alex Doner, Mihály Horányi, Pontus Brandt, Will Grundy, Carey M. Lisse, Joel Parker, Lowell Peltier, Andrew R. Poppe, Kelsi N. Singer, S. Alan Stern, Anne J. Verbiscer
Figure caption: Numerically integrated orbital evolution of initially 1 μm radius silicate (red) and ice (blue) grains from a source object on a circular orbit at 40 au, inclined by 5°. Top: evolution of the modified semimajor axis (solid) and modified perihelion distance (dashed). These modified orbital elements are calculated with μ* = μ(1 − β) and represent the grain's orbital geometry. Bottom: evolution of radiation pressure parameter (solid) and the ratio of grain size to initial grain size (dashed).
Paper: Production, Transport, and Destruction of Dust in the Kuiper Belt: The Effects of Refractory and Volatile Grain Compositions
Authors: Thomas Corbett, Alex Doner, Mihály Horányi, Pontus Brandt, Will Grundy, Carey M. Lisse, Joel Parker, Lowell Peltier, Andrew R. Poppe, Kelsi N. Singer, S. Alan Stern, Anne J. Verbiscer
Figure caption: Normalized distributions of KBO orbital elements. From top to bottom: the semimajor axis, eccentricity, and inclination of the SBDB (green), CFEPS (blue), and OSSOS (red) distributions.
Paper: On the Lunar Origin of Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 PT5
Authors: Theodore Kareta, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Nicholas Moskovitz, Davide Farnocchia, Benjamin N. L. Sharkey
Figure caption: Our visible photometric observations (taken with LMI on the LDT; white circles) of 2024 PT5 from August 14 are compared against the visible (Deveny on the LDT; blue circles) and near-infrared spectra (SpeX on the IRTF; red circles) taken on August 16. The three data sets agree well in the region of overlap and high SNR (0.75 μm 《 λ 《 0.90 μm). The surface of 2024 PT5 is likely silicate-rich based on the presence of a strong 0.9 μm absorption feature and a weak one at 2.0 μm.
Paper: On the Lunar Origin of Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 PT5
Authors: Theodore Kareta, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Nicholas Moskovitz, Davide Farnocchia, Benjamin N. L. Sharkey
Figure caption: The combined LDT+IRTF visible/near-infrared reflectance spectrum is shown (black) compared against relevant asteroid types from F. E. DeMeo et al. (2009; top panel) and returned samples from the Moon (bottom). As can be seen, none of the asteroid classes can fit the spectrum of 2024 PT5 well, but the regolith samples from the Moon can fit all aspects of the spectrum relatively easily. The details of and limitations to these comparisons are described at length in the text.
Paper: On the Lunar Origin of Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 PT5
Authors: Theodore Kareta, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Nicholas Moskovitz, Davide Farnocchia, Benjamin N. L. Sharkey
Figure caption: Heliocentric semimajor axis of 2024 PT5 between the years 1900 and 2150. The right two panels show histograms of the distribution before and after the 2084 encounters using four solutions: Current, gravity-only solution; Sim. Obs, including the additional simulated observations; Non-gravs, solution with gravity and nongravitational accelerations; Non-gravs+Obs, including both nongravitational accelerations and the additional simulated observations. The semimajor-axis distribution in the presence of nongravitational accelerations becomes non-Gaussian due to the wider distribution in timing in the first 2084 encounter (σ-tCA = 0.94 h, v∞ = 0.766 km s−1) and complex interactions of the slow encounter.
Paper: On the Lunar Origin of Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 PT5
Authors: Theodore Kareta, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Nicholas Moskovitz, Davide Farnocchia, Benjamin N. L. Sharkey
Figure caption: Top: a comparison of 863 visible/near-infrared reflectance spectra of returned lunar samples and meteorites from RELAB. Forty-five of these spectra had an rms of less than 0.2 when compared against a Bus–DeMeo asteroid type, in which case they are colored according to which type they match the best. Bottom: the outlines of those same taxonomic classes are shown at bottom, with the “matched” spectra now plotted in black. With a few exceptions discussed further in the text, the vast majority of the “matched” spectra have features or slopes that would make them look like outliers within their respective taxa.
Paper: On the Lunar Origin of Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 PT5
Authors: Theodore Kareta, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Nicholas Moskovitz, Davide Farnocchia, Benjamin N. L. Sharkey
Figure caption: Geocentric orbit of 2024 PT5 in Earth-ecliptic rotating frame (Sun to −XE direction). The left panel includes the 2002–2003 and 2055 close approaches (circled; details in Table 3) and the 2024–2025 horseshoe transition. The center and right panels show in detail the 2024–2025 close approaches in the same frame, including the out-of-ecliptic component.
Paper: On the Lunar Origin of Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 PT5
Authors: Theodore Kareta, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Nicholas Moskovitz, Davide Farnocchia, Benjamin N. L. Sharkey
Figure caption: Our 2024 August 14 photometric observations of 2024 PT5 are shown as black open circles with 1σ error bars. No obvious periodicity or variability is seen, suggesting that the lightcurve is either low-amplitude (implying a roughly circular shape of the object projected along the line of sight), very short (《30 s), or significantly longer than our lightcurve observations (》40 minutes).
Paper: On the Lunar Origin of Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 PT5
Authors: Theodore Kareta, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Nicholas Moskovitz, Davide Farnocchia, Benjamin N. L. Sharkey
Figure caption: Geocentric distance and energy of 2024 PT5 between 2024 June and 2025 June. The times when the distance 《 Hill distance and energy 《 0 are highlighted by the shadowed areas, showing that these conditions do not occur simultaneously.
Paper: On the Lunar Origin of Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 PT5
Authors: Theodore Kareta, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Nicholas Moskovitz, Davide Farnocchia, Benjamin N. L. Sharkey
Figure caption: A flowchart describing the general decision-making process by which one might discern the origin of an object on a very Earth-like orbit based on its orbital and reflective properties. This approach will underestimate the amount of lunar material in near-Earth space, and the caveats to this simplified approach are discussed in the text.
Paper: The Hubble Tension in Our Own Backyard: DESI and the Nearness of the Coma Cluster
Authors: Daniel Scolnic, Adam G. Riess, Yukei S. Murakami, Erik R. Peterson, Dillon Brout, Maria Acevedo, Bastien Carreres, David O. Jones, Khaled Said, Cullan Howlett, Gagandeep S. Anand
Figure caption: Raw light-curve data in the “c” and “o” bands from the ATLAS survey of one representative SN: 2023epj. The curves are the SALT2 model fit. The inset shows the position of the SN relative to its host galaxy (K. N. Abazajian et al. 2009). This figure for each SN Ia, along with the raw data, is online at GitHub, https://github.com/dscolnic/Coma, and Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14213131.
Paper: The Hubble Tension in Our Own Backyard: DESI and the Nearness of the Coma Cluster
Authors: Daniel Scolnic, Adam G. Riess, Yukei S. Murakami, Erik R. Peterson, Dillon Brout, Maria Acevedo, Bastien Carreres, David O. Jones, Khaled Said, Cullan Howlett, Gagandeep S. Anand
Figure caption: Historical (1990 onward) distance modulus measurements of the Coma cluster (as reviewed in R. de Grijs & G. Bono 2020). Only distance measurements that do not depend on redshift and H0 are included.
Paper: The Hubble Tension in Our Own Backyard: DESI and the Nearness of the Coma Cluster
Authors: Daniel Scolnic, Adam G. Riess, Yukei S. Murakami, Erik R. Peterson, Dillon Brout, Maria Acevedo, Bastien Carreres, David O. Jones, Khaled Said, Cullan Howlett, Gagandeep S. Anand
Figure caption: Standardized magnitudes for SNe Ia in the Coma cluster whose light curves pass quality cuts. The average line is shown in dashed blue. The colors of the SNe are tied to the survey sample.
Paper: The Hubble Tension in Our Own Backyard: DESI and the Nearness of the Coma Cluster
Authors: Daniel Scolnic, Adam G. Riess, Yukei S. Murakami, Erik R. Peterson, Dillon Brout, Maria Acevedo, Bastien Carreres, David O. Jones, Khaled Said, Cullan Howlett, Gagandeep S. Anand
Figure caption: The distance modulus measurements to the Coma cluster as summarized in Table 2. “Combination of Independent” refers to combining JWST TRGB+FP, HST NIR SBF, and the Cepheid+SN Ia measurement from this Letter, all independent techniques (three colored points).
Paper: The Hubble Tension in Our Own Backyard: DESI and the Nearness of the Coma Cluster
Authors: Daniel Scolnic, Adam G. Riess, Yukei S. Murakami, Erik R. Peterson, Dillon Brout, Maria Acevedo, Bastien Carreres, David O. Jones, Khaled Said, Cullan Howlett, Gagandeep S. Anand
Figure caption: (Left) The locations of the SNe Ia identified to be in the Coma cluster (yellow stars) and the galaxies identified to be in the Coma group as from the full S24 Coma group catalog (light gray circles), the S24 FP sample (dark blue circles), and the T15 Coma group catalog (light blue circles). The center of the cluster is marked in red. The positions of the SNe are listed in Table 1. (Right) For the rectangular box on the left, a colored image of that sky area with the SNe within that location marked.
Paper: NuSTAR Observations of a Varying-flux Quasar in the Epoch of Reionization
Authors: Lea Marcotulli, Thomas Connor, Eduardo Bañados, Peter G. Boorman, Giulia Migliori, Brian W. Grefenstette, Emmanuel Momjian, Aneta Siemiginowska, Daniel Stern, Silvia Belladitta, C. C. Cheung, Andrew Fabian, Yana Khusanova, Chiara Mazzucchelli, Sofía Rojas-Ruiz, C. Megan Urry
Figure caption: Chandra (left) and NuSTAR (right) X-ray observations of J1429+5447. All panels show the same ﹩2{\rm{^{\prime} }}\times 2{\rm{^{\prime} }}﹩ region, and the sets of images are smoothed by Gaussian kernels of radius 2″ (Chandra) and 8″ (NuSTAR). Top: 3–10 keV images of the single Chandra observation and the combined NuSTAR observation. Reticles on the Chandra image mark the positions of I-SW and I-NE. A circular aperture of radius 25″ is drawn around the centroid of the NuSTAR flux. Bottom left: Chandra observations in a soft 0.5–3.0 keV band (upper) and broad 0.5–10.0 keV band (lower). The two interloper sources are clearly seen in these two bands, despite not contributing significant flux to the 3–10 keV band. Bottom right: NuSTAR 3–10 keV images of J1429+5447 from observation 60701063002 (N02; left) and 60701063004 (N04; right) with FPMA (top) and FPMB (bottom). J1429+5447 is clearly detected in the combined image as well as the individual exposures, albeit less significantly in the FPMB images owing to the higher background.
Paper: NuSTAR Observations of a Varying-flux Quasar in the Epoch of Reionization
Authors: Lea Marcotulli, Thomas Connor, Eduardo Bañados, Peter G. Boorman, Giulia Migliori, Brian W. Grefenstette, Emmanuel Momjian, Aneta Siemiginowska, Daniel Stern, Silvia Belladitta, C. C. Cheung, Andrew Fabian, Yana Khusanova, Chiara Mazzucchelli, Sofía Rojas-Ruiz, C. Megan Urry
Figure caption: 3–7 keV posterior flux distribution vs. the full-band photon index posterior distribution for J1429+5447 obtained with the simultaneous fit of the three Chandra sources and the coadded NuSTAR FPMAs (details in Section 4.3). The 1σ and 90% contour levels are reported in the plot. There is no overlap between the two contours, which is a further indication that the flux of the source varied in the four months (observed frame) between observations. The photon index distributions span a similar range, indicating that more likely, the source only varied in flux. Note that these photon indices are extracted by fitting data sets covering different energy ranges and hence cannot be compared one-to-one.