adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: The Galactic Disk North–South Asymmetry in Metallicity May Be a New Tracer for the Disk Warp
Authors: Weixiang Sun, Han Shen, Biwei Jiang, Xiaowei Liu
Figure caption: Distribution of the RC sample stars in the [Fe/H] − [α/Fe] plane, overplotted with contours of equal densities. The number densities are represented by the color bar on the right. The horizontal axis and vertical axis are, respectively, spaced by 0.025 and 0.02 dex, with no less than 20 stars in a bin. The two dashed lines separate the thin (below the lines) and the thick (above the lines) disk stars.
Paper: Reliable Detections of Atmospheres on Rocky Exoplanets with Photometric JWST Phase Curves
Authors: Mark Hammond, Claire Marie Guimond, Tim Lichtenberg, Harrison Nicholls, Chloe Fisher, Rafael Luque, Tobias G. Meier, Jake Taylor, Quentin Changeat, Lisa Dang, Hamish C. F. C. Hay, Oliver Herbort, Johanna Teske
Figure caption: A summary of the input data for the bare-rock and atmospheric models alongside the thermal emission for the typical temperatures of star and planets in this paper. The top three panels show the spherical reflectances rS(λ) for each of the planetary surfaces in Table 1. The single-scattering albedo w for each surface and a script to convert it to different albedos are available at doi:10.5281/zenodo.13691959. The fourth panel shows the opacity of H2O and CO2 at 500 K and 1 bar from DACE (S. L. Grimm et al. 2021). The fifth panel shows the throughputs of the F1280W and F1500W filters, as well as the blackbody emission from a star at 2500 K, a planet at 1000 K, and a planet at 400 K, each normalized to their maximum values.
Paper: Reliable Detections of Atmospheres on Rocky Exoplanets with Photometric JWST Phase Curves
Authors: Mark Hammond, Claire Marie Guimond, Tim Lichtenberg, Harrison Nicholls, Chloe Fisher, Rafael Luque, Tobias G. Meier, Jake Taylor, Quentin Changeat, Lisa Dang, Hamish C. F. C. Hay, Oliver Herbort, Johanna Teske
Figure caption: Simulated dayside emission—the average eclipse depth of five eclipses—in the F1500W and F1280W filters for TRAPPIST-1 c and GJ 486 b, all the surfaces in Table 1, and all the atmospheres in Table 2. The error bars show the 1σ uncertainty on the eclipse depth, as is typically plotted for this type of measurement (T. P. Greene et al. 2023; S. Zieba et al. 2023). They are shown without heat redistribution here, which we explore in all subsequent figures. Each individual eclipse is assumed to have a baseline of four eclipse durations outside the eclipse. TRAPPIST-1 c represents the cooler planets in our sample, and GJ 486 represents the hotter planets in our sample. The average relative emission in these bandpasses is higher for GJ 486 b than for TRAPPIST-1 c, for the reasons discussed in Section 3.2.
Paper: The Galactic Disk North–South Asymmetry in Metallicity May Be a New Tracer for the Disk Warp
Authors: Weixiang Sun, Han Shen, Biwei Jiang, Xiaowei Liu
Figure caption: The disk warp is traced by the disk metallicity midplane of the whole RC sample stars. The black dots represent the disk midplane determined by the method of the right panel of Figure 3. The grid is the best fit with Equation (1), that is, Zw = 0.017 (R − 7.112)2 sin(ϕ − 9.218). The black solid line indicates the LON, 9.218 ﹩{}_{-1.636}^{+1.689}﹩ degrees, and the blue dashed line is the radius of the disk warp at Sun–Galactic center direction (ϕ = 0°). The LON obviously deviates from the Sun–Galactic center direction.
Paper: The Galactic Disk North–South Asymmetry in Metallicity May Be a New Tracer for the Disk Warp
Authors: Weixiang Sun, Han Shen, Biwei Jiang, Xiaowei Liu
Figure caption: The disk warp is traced by the disk metallicity midplane of the thin disk stars. The red dots represent the disk midplane determined by the method of the right panel of Figure 3. The grid is the best fit with Equation (1), that is, Zw = 0.016 (R − 6.507)2  sin(ϕ − 4.240). The red solid line indicates the LON, ϕ0 = 4.240 ﹩{}_{-1.747}^{+1.641}﹩ degree, and the blue dashed line marks the radius of the disk warp at Sun–Galactic center direction (ϕ = 0°).
Paper: The Galactic Disk North–South Asymmetry in Metallicity May Be a New Tracer for the Disk Warp
Authors: Weixiang Sun, Han Shen, Biwei Jiang, Xiaowei Liu
Figure caption: Metallicity ([Fe/H], left panel) and remaining metallicity (Δ[Fe/H], right panel) distribution in the R–Z plane of the whole RC sample stars.
Paper: The Galactic Disk North–South Asymmetry in Metallicity May Be a New Tracer for the Disk Warp
Authors: Weixiang Sun, Han Shen, Biwei Jiang, Xiaowei Liu
Figure caption: Metallicity distribution in the R–Z plane of the thin (left panel) and thick (right panel) disks.
Paper: The Galactic Disk North–South Asymmetry in Metallicity May Be a New Tracer for the Disk Warp
Authors: Weixiang Sun, Han Shen, Biwei Jiang, Xiaowei Liu
Figure caption: The corner plots of posterior distributions of MCMC samples for the parameters in the warp model with Zw = Aw (R  −  Rw)2 sin(ϕ − ϕ0) of the whole sample stars (left panel) and the thin disk stars (right panel). The shadowed areas circled from inside to outside represent the confidence intervals of 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ.
Paper: Reliable Detections of Atmospheres on Rocky Exoplanets with Photometric JWST Phase Curves
Authors: Mark Hammond, Claire Marie Guimond, Tim Lichtenberg, Harrison Nicholls, Chloe Fisher, Rafael Luque, Tobias G. Meier, Jake Taylor, Quentin Changeat, Lisa Dang, Hamish C. F. C. Hay, Oliver Herbort, Johanna Teske
Figure caption: Comparing the ranges of possible F1500W dayside emission (for five observed eclipses) from the bare-rock model, the atmospheric model with zero heat redistribution, and the atmospheric model with full heat redistribution. Each observation is modeled as the average of five secondary eclipses, with a baseline of four eclipse durations outside the eclipse. Each plotted range compiles the relevant models from the suites like those in Figure 2; for example, the leftmost range shows the range of possible F1500W emission values for TRAPPIST-1 c due to all the different surface types in Table 1. The planets are ordered by equilibrium temperature. TRAPPIST-1 c and GJ 486 b are highlighted in bold, as they are plotted in more detail in Figure 2. The bare-rock surfaces can only be distinguished from the atmospheres with zero heat redistribution on GJ 806 b and LTT 1445 A b (that is, the uncertainties on their lower limits do not overlap). The bare-rock surfaces can be distinguished from some of the atmospheres with full heat redistribution on more planets for a subset of atmospheres with both full heat redistribution and a low CO2 abundance.
Paper: Reliable Detections of Atmospheres on Rocky Exoplanets with Photometric JWST Phase Curves
Authors: Mark Hammond, Claire Marie Guimond, Tim Lichtenberg, Harrison Nicholls, Chloe Fisher, Rafael Luque, Tobias G. Meier, Jake Taylor, Quentin Changeat, Lisa Dang, Hamish C. F. C. Hay, Oliver Herbort, Johanna Teske
Figure caption: The ranges of modeled (and then fitted) F1500W phase curve maxima and minima for the range of atmospheres in Table 1 compared to the zero flux minimum expected on the nightside of a bare-rock planet. Each observation is modeled as a phase curve over one orbit. The plotted points are the true value of the maxima and minima of the phase curves, and the error bars are the 1σ uncertainty of the values fitted with J. Salvatier et al. (2016). As we did for the eclipse-only observations, the error bars are conservatively scaled up by 50% to ensure that they are at least as large as they would be for real observations. With a heat redistribution of 25% of the dayside energy to the nightside, almost every planet has detectable nightside emission. Those that do not are atmospheres with low CO2 abundances on planets with low signal-to-noise ratios; these also have detectably weak emission from their dayside as a result. We do not include the dayside emission for bare-rock surfaces, as these are shown in Figure 3 with comparable precision to that achieved by a phase curve. Moreover, our aim in the current figure is to identify unambiguous information by distinguishing nonzero nightside emission due to atmospheric heat redistribution.
Paper: Reliable Detections of Atmospheres on Rocky Exoplanets with Photometric JWST Phase Curves
Authors: Mark Hammond, Claire Marie Guimond, Tim Lichtenberg, Harrison Nicholls, Chloe Fisher, Rafael Luque, Tobias G. Meier, Jake Taylor, Quentin Changeat, Lisa Dang, Hamish C. F. C. Hay, Oliver Herbort, Johanna Teske
Figure caption: Comparing the ranges of the differences in dayside emission between the F1500W and F1280W filters from the bare-rock model, the atmospheric model with zero heat redistribution, and the atmospheric model with full heat redistribution. Each observation is modeled as the average of five secondary eclipses in each of the two filters, with a baseline of four eclipse durations outside the eclipse. More of the atmospheres can be detected than in Figure 3 by this metric, which makes use of the CO2 spectral feature in the F1500W bandpass, which is weaker in the F1280W bandpass. Only the atmospheres with 1 ppm CO2 can be reliably detected by this metric, because for higher abundances of CO2, its opacity saturates the F1280W bandpass as well as the F1500W bandpass (see Figure 1). The atmospheres with H2O cannot be detected by this metric, because the opacity of H2O is similar in both bandpasses (Figure 1), resulting in similar emission in both filters (Figure 2). The atmospheres with full heat redistribution are not much more detectable by this metric than the atmospheres with zero redistribution. This is because any redistribution reduces the emission in both the F1500W and F1280W filters by a roughly equal fraction.
Paper: Superstrong Magnetic Fields in Sunspot Bipolar Light Bridges
Authors: J. S. Castellanos Durán, A. Korpi-Lagg, S. K. Solanki, M. van Noort, N. Milanovic
Figure caption: Magnetic field strength at three optical depths, as marked in panels (a)–(c) as a function of continuum intensity. Colors refer to penumbrae (blue), umbrae (green), and BLBs (red). The shaded regions are composed of all the pixels in a given region for all Hinode/SOT-SP scans with BLBs. Each scan of a sunspot group with a BLB is represented by a symbol displaying the mean value of the 25% strongest pixels within each of the three regions. As the number of pixels (area) covered by penumbra, umbra, and BLBs is comparatively different (Apenumbra > Aumbra > ABLB), the background shades were saturated at different levels, as shown by the color bars on the right, where the numbers represent how many pixels belong to a given bin.
Paper: Superstrong Magnetic Fields in Sunspot Bipolar Light Bridges
Authors: J. S. Castellanos Durán, A. Korpi-Lagg, S. K. Solanki, M. van Noort, N. Milanovic
Figure caption: Observed Stokes profiles at selected positions (blue star in the ROI column) within the BLBs and their MODEST fits. The left two columns show the continuum images of the AR and a zoom-in into the BLBs (green contours). Arrows point toward disk center. The four columns on the right show the observed Stokes I, Q, U, and V (gray dots). The blue lines show the best fit obtained with the spatially coupled inversion. The ticks on the top show the Zeeman splitting for a magnetic field of 0, 3, and 6 kG. The wavelength position of the ticks take into account Dopplershifts at ﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}\tau =-0.8﹩. The magnetic field strength at the same node is written in the third column.
Paper: Superstrong Magnetic Fields in Sunspot Bipolar Light Bridges
Authors: J. S. Castellanos Durán, A. Korpi-Lagg, S. K. Solanki, M. van Noort, N. Milanovic
Figure caption: Characteristics of Hinode/SOT-SP scans harboring BLBs. Panel (a) shows the smoothed daily sunspot number (gray line). Yellow diamonds mark all scans as part of the MODEST sample. Green circles indicate the observation days when BLBs were found. Histograms show the number of Hinode/SP scans of BLBs within a given μ-range (b), the number of times a BLB was scanned (c), and the number of BLBs per sunspot group (d).
Paper: Superstrong Magnetic Fields in Sunspot Bipolar Light Bridges
Authors: J. S. Castellanos Durán, A. Korpi-Lagg, S. K. Solanki, M. van Noort, N. Milanovic
Figure caption: Bipolar light bridges and observed Stokes profiles along a cut through the BLBs. The left two columns show the continuum images of the AR and a zoom-in into the BLBs, outlined by the green contours. Arrows point toward disk center. The μ-value and time is given for the center of each scan. The four columns on the right show the Stokes I, Q, U, and V spectra, respectively, along the dashed line in column 2. The Stokes profiles are saturated at  ±5%. The yellow ticks show the Zeeman splitting (ΔλZeeman = 4.67 × 10−13geffλ0B) for a magnetic field of 0, 3, and 6 kG.
Paper: Superstrong Magnetic Fields in Sunspot Bipolar Light Bridges
Authors: J. S. Castellanos Durán, A. Korpi-Lagg, S. K. Solanki, M. van Noort, N. Milanovic
Figure caption: Continuum images of isolated BLBs. They are not plotted on the same scale, with the bars below the individual BLBs denoting 5″. The locations of strong magnetic fields within the BLB are color shaded, with the shading saturated following the color bar. The AR number and the scan time are written above each BLB. Arrows point toward disk center.
Paper: The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Running of the Spectral Index
Authors: Gabriella Agazie, Akash Anumarlapudi, Anne M. Archibald, Zaven Arzoumanian, Jeremy G. Baier, Paul T. Baker, Bence Bécsy, Laura Blecha, Adam Brazier, Paul R. Brook, Sarah Burke-Spolaor, J. Andrew Casey-Clyde, Maria Charisi, Shami Chatterjee, Tyler Cohen, James M. Cordes, Neil J. Cornish, Fronefield Crawford, H. Thankful Cromartie, Kathryn Crowter, Megan E. DeCesar, Paul B. Demorest, Heling Deng, Lankeswar Dey, Timothy Dolch, David Esmyol, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, William Fiore, Emmanuel Fonseca, Gabriel E. Freedman, Emiko C. Gardiner, Nate Garver-Daniels, Peter A. Gentile, Kyle A. Gersbach, Joseph Glaser, Deborah C. Good, Kayhan Gültekin, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Ross J. Jennings, Aaron D. Johnson, Megan L. Jones, David L. Kaplan, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Matthew Kerr, Joey S. Key, Nima Laal, Michael T. Lam, William G. Lamb, Bjorn Larsen, T. Joseph W. Lazio, Natalia Lewandowska, Rafael R. Lino dos Santos, Tingting Liu, Duncan R. Lorimer, Jing Luo, Ryan S. Lynch, Chung-Pei Ma, Dustin R. Madison, Alexander McEwen, James W. McKee, Maura A. McLaughlin, Natasha McMann, Bradley W. Meyers, Patrick M. Meyers, Chiara M. F. Mingarelli, Andrea Mitridate, Cherry Ng, David J. Nice, Stella Koch Ocker, Ken D. Olum, Timothy T. Pennucci, Benetge B. P. Perera, Nihan S. Pol, Henri A. Radovan, Scott M. Ransom, Paul S. Ray, Joseph D. Romano, Jessie C. Runnoe, Alexander Saffer, Shashwat C. Sardesai, Ann Schmiedekamp, Carl Schmiedekamp, Kai Schmitz, Tobias Schröder, Brent J. Shapiro-Albert, Xavier Siemens, Joseph Simon, Magdalena S. Siwek, Sophia V. Sosa Fiscella, Ingrid H. Stairs, Daniel R. Stinebring, Kevin Stovall, Abhimanyu Susobhanan, Joseph K. Swiggum, Stephen R. Taylor, Jacob E. Turner, Caner Unal, Michele Vallisneri, Rutger van Haasteren, Sarah J. Vigeland, Richard von Eckardstein, Haley M. Wahl, Caitlin A. Witt, David Wright, Olivia Young
Figure caption: GWB spectra predicted by the RPL model. The blue shaded bands encompass all spectra that are associated with points inside the 68% and 95% HPDVs in the 3D parameter space. The cyan, green, and orange colored spectra belong to the parameter points shown in Figure 1. The gray “violins” in the background represent the posterior densities for the 30 values of the GW energy density spectrum, {h2ΩGW(fi)} with fi = i/T and i = 1 ⋯ 30, in the free spectral model.
Paper: The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Running of the Spectral Index
Authors: Gabriella Agazie, Akash Anumarlapudi, Anne M. Archibald, Zaven Arzoumanian, Jeremy G. Baier, Paul T. Baker, Bence Bécsy, Laura Blecha, Adam Brazier, Paul R. Brook, Sarah Burke-Spolaor, J. Andrew Casey-Clyde, Maria Charisi, Shami Chatterjee, Tyler Cohen, James M. Cordes, Neil J. Cornish, Fronefield Crawford, H. Thankful Cromartie, Kathryn Crowter, Megan E. DeCesar, Paul B. Demorest, Heling Deng, Lankeswar Dey, Timothy Dolch, David Esmyol, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, William Fiore, Emmanuel Fonseca, Gabriel E. Freedman, Emiko C. Gardiner, Nate Garver-Daniels, Peter A. Gentile, Kyle A. Gersbach, Joseph Glaser, Deborah C. Good, Kayhan Gültekin, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Ross J. Jennings, Aaron D. Johnson, Megan L. Jones, David L. Kaplan, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Matthew Kerr, Joey S. Key, Nima Laal, Michael T. Lam, William G. Lamb, Bjorn Larsen, T. Joseph W. Lazio, Natalia Lewandowska, Rafael R. Lino dos Santos, Tingting Liu, Duncan R. Lorimer, Jing Luo, Ryan S. Lynch, Chung-Pei Ma, Dustin R. Madison, Alexander McEwen, James W. McKee, Maura A. McLaughlin, Natasha McMann, Bradley W. Meyers, Patrick M. Meyers, Chiara M. F. Mingarelli, Andrea Mitridate, Cherry Ng, David J. Nice, Stella Koch Ocker, Ken D. Olum, Timothy T. Pennucci, Benetge B. P. Perera, Nihan S. Pol, Henri A. Radovan, Scott M. Ransom, Paul S. Ray, Joseph D. Romano, Jessie C. Runnoe, Alexander Saffer, Shashwat C. Sardesai, Ann Schmiedekamp, Carl Schmiedekamp, Kai Schmitz, Tobias Schröder, Brent J. Shapiro-Albert, Xavier Siemens, Joseph Simon, Magdalena S. Siwek, Sophia V. Sosa Fiscella, Ingrid H. Stairs, Daniel R. Stinebring, Kevin Stovall, Abhimanyu Susobhanan, Joseph K. Swiggum, Stephen R. Taylor, Jacob E. Turner, Caner Unal, Michele Vallisneri, Rutger van Haasteren, Sarah J. Vigeland, Richard von Eckardstein, Haley M. Wahl, Caitlin A. Witt, David Wright, Olivia Young
Figure caption: Corner plot of the 3D parameter space of the RPL model. The blue shaded regions in the off-diagonal plots and the solid blue curves in the diagonal plots show the marginalized 2D and 1D posterior densities for the RPL model parameters, respectively. The dark blue regions mark 68% credible regions, the light blue regions mark 95% credible regions, and the dashed vertical lines mark 68% and 95% credible intervals. The cyan and green colored points represent random samples from the 68% and 95% HPDVs in the 3D parameter space, respectively. The orange plus sign marks the point where the 3D posterior density reaches its maximum (see the second column in Table 2). The GWB spectra corresponding to the colored points are shown in identical colors in Figure 2.
Paper: The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Running of the Spectral Index
Authors: Gabriella Agazie, Akash Anumarlapudi, Anne M. Archibald, Zaven Arzoumanian, Jeremy G. Baier, Paul T. Baker, Bence Bécsy, Laura Blecha, Adam Brazier, Paul R. Brook, Sarah Burke-Spolaor, J. Andrew Casey-Clyde, Maria Charisi, Shami Chatterjee, Tyler Cohen, James M. Cordes, Neil J. Cornish, Fronefield Crawford, H. Thankful Cromartie, Kathryn Crowter, Megan E. DeCesar, Paul B. Demorest, Heling Deng, Lankeswar Dey, Timothy Dolch, David Esmyol, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, William Fiore, Emmanuel Fonseca, Gabriel E. Freedman, Emiko C. Gardiner, Nate Garver-Daniels, Peter A. Gentile, Kyle A. Gersbach, Joseph Glaser, Deborah C. Good, Kayhan Gültekin, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Ross J. Jennings, Aaron D. Johnson, Megan L. Jones, David L. Kaplan, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Matthew Kerr, Joey S. Key, Nima Laal, Michael T. Lam, William G. Lamb, Bjorn Larsen, T. Joseph W. Lazio, Natalia Lewandowska, Rafael R. Lino dos Santos, Tingting Liu, Duncan R. Lorimer, Jing Luo, Ryan S. Lynch, Chung-Pei Ma, Dustin R. Madison, Alexander McEwen, James W. McKee, Maura A. McLaughlin, Natasha McMann, Bradley W. Meyers, Patrick M. Meyers, Chiara M. F. Mingarelli, Andrea Mitridate, Cherry Ng, David J. Nice, Stella Koch Ocker, Ken D. Olum, Timothy T. Pennucci, Benetge B. P. Perera, Nihan S. Pol, Henri A. Radovan, Scott M. Ransom, Paul S. Ray, Joseph D. Romano, Jessie C. Runnoe, Alexander Saffer, Shashwat C. Sardesai, Ann Schmiedekamp, Carl Schmiedekamp, Kai Schmitz, Tobias Schröder, Brent J. Shapiro-Albert, Xavier Siemens, Joseph Simon, Magdalena S. Siwek, Sophia V. Sosa Fiscella, Ingrid H. Stairs, Daniel R. Stinebring, Kevin Stovall, Abhimanyu Susobhanan, Joseph K. Swiggum, Stephen R. Taylor, Jacob E. Turner, Caner Unal, Michele Vallisneri, Rutger van Haasteren, Sarah J. Vigeland, Richard von Eckardstein, Haley M. Wahl, Caitlin A. Witt, David Wright, Olivia Young
Figure caption: Bayesian periodograms for the free spectral model (green “violins”) and the RPL model (purple “violins”). Each “half-violin” corresponds to a Bayesian posterior probability density for the respective value of h2ΩGW(fi).
Paper: Superstrong Magnetic Fields in Sunspot Bipolar Light Bridges
Authors: J. S. Castellanos Durán, A. Korpi-Lagg, S. K. Solanki, M. van Noort, N. Milanovic
Figure caption: Normalized RFs for the two lines measured by Hinode/SP to changes in the magnetic field of a typical pixel within BLBs. Panels (a) and (b) show the RF of the Stokes profiles I and V. Red (or blue) colors represent how the 6301.5 and 6302.5 Å Fe I lines are sensitive to a perturbation of B at a given optical depth. Smaller optical depths correspond to greater heights in the solar atmosphere. Panel (c) shows the total RF of Stokes I as a function of optical depth. Vertical lines mark the optical depths at which the nodes of the MODEST inversions are located.
Paper: Superstrong Magnetic Fields in Sunspot Bipolar Light Bridges
Authors: J. S. Castellanos Durán, A. Korpi-Lagg, S. K. Solanki, M. van Noort, N. Milanovic
Figure caption: Vertical change of the magnetic field between nodes as a function of continuum intensity. Colors refer to penumbrae (blue), umbrae (green), and BLBs (red). Each BLB scan is represented by a symbol.
Paper: Superstrong Magnetic Fields in Sunspot Bipolar Light Bridges
Authors: J. S. Castellanos Durán, A. Korpi-Lagg, S. K. Solanki, M. van Noort, N. Milanovic
Figure caption: Coalescence of two BLBs in AR 11302 into one BLB. The two BLBs are in the left spot of the delta group. Continuum images (left) and magnetograms (right). Time runs from top to bottom. The bars denote 50″.
Paper: Superstrong Magnetic Fields in Sunspot Bipolar Light Bridges
Authors: J. S. Castellanos Durán, A. Korpi-Lagg, S. K. Solanki, M. van Noort, N. Milanovic
Figure caption: Fragmentation of BLB in AR 12673 into two new BLBs. Continuum image (left) and magnetogram (right). Time runs from top to bottom. The bars denote 50″.
Paper: Superstrong Magnetic Fields in Sunspot Bipolar Light Bridges
Authors: J. S. Castellanos Durán, A. Korpi-Lagg, S. K. Solanki, M. van Noort, N. Milanovic
Figure caption: Continuum image (left) and magnetogram (right) of AR 11967 (top) and AR 12297 (bottom). Blue circles mark the locations of BLBs that appeared at the same time on different parts of this AR.
Paper: Supermassive Black Hole Spin Constraints from Polarimetry in an Equatorial Disk Model
Authors: Daniel C. M. Palumbo
Figure caption: Evolution of the direct and indirect image ∠β2 as a function of spin for various combinations of characteristic emission radius Re and axisymmetric velocity for a model with θo = 17∘. Negative values of a* (blue) are clockwise black hole spins on the sky; the black hole spin evidently rotates the direct image phase, ∠β2,0 oppositely in the complex plane to the on-sky direction, while the indirect image phase ∠β2,1 rotates in the same direction as the spin.
Paper: Supermassive Black Hole Spin Constraints from Polarimetry in an Equatorial Disk Model
Authors: Daniel C. M. Palumbo
Figure caption: Example polarized images of the KerrBAM model with θo = 17∘, varying only the axisymmetric velocity orientation χ. Velocities at top are the spatially uniform velocity in the ZAMO frame. The assumption that equatorial magnetic fields trail the plasma velocity vector causes χ to be the leading order term in determining the polarimetric spiral pitch angle ∠β2.