The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 40 of the 48 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS?
Open accessAbstract
The light curve of 1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6, a ∼16 Myr old star in the Sco-Cen OB association, underwent a complex series of deep eclipses that lasted 56 days, centered on 2007 April. This light curve is interpreted as the transit of a giant ring system that is filling up a fraction of the Hill sphere of an unseen secondary companion, J1407b. We fit the light curve with a model of an azimuthally symmetric ring system, including spatial scales down to the temporal limit set by the star's diameter and relative velocity. The best ring model has 37 rings and extends out to a radius of 0.6 AU (9 × 10 7 km), and the rings have an estimated total mass on the order of 100 M Moon . The ring system has one clearly defined gap at 0.4 AU (6.1 × 10 7 km), which, we hypothesize, is being cleared out by a <0.8 M ⊕ exosatellite orbiting around J1407b. This eclipse and model imply that we are seeing a circumplanetary disk undergoing a dynamic transition to an exosatellite-sculpted ring structure, which is one of the first seen outside our solar system.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
40 Own interpretation · 17 Partly supported · 17 Own result · 11 Supported · 6 No basis given · 5 No full text of the sources · 2 Own method · 1 Supported so far · 1 Sources not found · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The light curve of 1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6,a ∼16 Myr old star in the Sco-Cen OB association, underwent a complex series of deep eclipses that lasted 56 days, centered on 2007 April.”
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · hedged
“The Super Wide Angle Search for Planets (SuperWASP) database (Butters et al. 2010) shows that the star underwent a complex series of eclipses lasting ∼56 days around 2007 May and includes a dimming of >95%.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > Abstract
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Butters et al. 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and §4.1 describe the WASP light-curve archive, and §3 confirms that its southern data cover 2007. However, searches for the star’s identifier and for the 56-day April 2007 eclipses found no passage describing this star or event in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Partly supportedcites Mamajek et al. (2012) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.1 identifies 1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6 and describes a deep eclipse with complex dimming around 2007 April 29. The paper’s abstract says significant dimming occurred on and off over at least about 54 days, and Section 3.6 says the eclipse lasted about 54 days including gradual dimming. These passages support the event and timing, but not the stated 56-day duration. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · hedged
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Only the 2007 eclipse event is seen in the time series photometry, and Kenworthy et al. (2015) place constraints on the possible mass and orbital period for this companion.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kenworthy et al. 2015 source
Section 4.1.3 (p. 12) states that no other eclipses were observed in the nine-year WASP-South and ASAS data and that the 2012–2014 PROMPT-4 and ROAD photometry showed no new deep eclipse like the one in 2007. This supports the claim about the observed time-series photometry. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The minimum velocity required to cross a limb-darkened star is derived in van Werkhoven et al. (2014), and for the case of J1407, Equation (12) gives a relative velocity of 33 km s -1 for R = 0.99 R and Lmax = 3.1 L * day -1 .”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 3.1. Fitting the Ring Orientation Using Light-curve Gradients
What the sources say
- Supportedcites van Werkhoven et al. 2014 source
The Ring Model section (Eq. 12; page unavailable) derives the minimum relative speed for a limb-darkened star as proportional to light-curve slope and stellar radius. Applying it to the stated slope and radius gives a speed in the mid-30s km s⁻¹, consistent with approximately 33 km s⁻¹ given the equation’s rounded coefficient. The paper itself uses a radius of 1.13 ± 0.14 R☉, rather than the citing sentence’s input of 0.99 R☉. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The transits of giant planets with ring systems produce a distinct and detectable light curve (Barnes & Fortney 2004;Tusnski & Valio 2011), and searches for the transit timing variations caused by attendant exomoons are ongoing (Kipping et al. 2012(Kipping et al. , 2013)).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Barnes & Fortney 2004 source
The Conclusion says rings change a planet’s transit light curve and that the signature of large Saturn-like rings is detectable, especially during ingress and egress, with sufficiently precise photometry. This supports the ring-transit clause attributed to Barnes and Fortney; the separate exomoon-search clause is attributed to other sources. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites Tusnski & Valio 2011 source
Section 2.4 describes a deeper transit light curve with a distinctive rounded shape at ingress and egress when rings are present. Section 3.3 says those signatures can be detected, while qualifying that detectability depends on noise: its simulated Saturn-like ring system was detectable with Kepler but not CoRoT. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This light curve is interpreted as the transit of a giant ring system that is filling up a fraction of the Hill sphere of an unseen secondary companion, J1407b.”
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
“Mamajek et al. (2012) and van Werkhoven et al. (2014) propose that these eclipses are caused by a large ring system orbiting an unseen substellar companion, dubbed J1407b.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Mamajek et al. (2012) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusion (page unavailable) models J1407’s eclipse with an orbiting companion surrounded by a disk and rings, supporting the ring-system interpretation. But it says the companion could be a low-mass star, brown dwarf, or gas giant planet; it does not establish that the companion is substellar. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites van Werkhoven et al. (2014) source
The Ring Model (section 4; page unavailable) interprets the eclipse as rings around J1407b passing in front of the star. The Results (section 5) identify multiple rings, and the Discussion (section 6) compares the modeled disc with the companion’s Hill radius. This supports the citing sentence as an interpretation, not as proof that the companion or rings have been directly observed. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The primary star and ring system are at a similar distance from the Earth.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The ring system is at least several times larger than the angular size of the primary star.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The orbit of the secondary companion during the eclipse can be approximated as a straight line with constant relative velocity v.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The rings orbit the secondary companion in Keplerian orbits that are circular.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The ring particles in aggregate can be approximated by a smooth screen with an optical transmission τ(r) that varies as a function of radial distance r from the center of the secondary companion.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The rings are azimuthally symmetric.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The rings are considerably thinner than their diameter (thin ring approximation).
- The authors state this as an assumption: All rings have well-defined edges and have a constant transmission across the width of the ring.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The ring system lies in a plane that contains both the rings and the equatorial plane of the secondary companion (the ring plane).
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A more detailed analysis of the Super-WASP raw data by van Werkhoven et al. (2014) and removal of a 0.1 mag amplitude, 3.2 day periodic variability due to rotational modulation by star spots show temporal structure down to a limit of 10 minutes (van Werkhoven et al. 2014).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites van Werkhoven et al. 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The angular diameter of the star is 65.2 ± 9.3 μas, based on a distance d = 133 ± 12 pc and radius of 0.99 ± 0.11 R (van Werkhoven et al. 2014;Kenworthy et al. 2015).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 3. THE LIGHT CURVE OF J1407
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites van Werkhoven et al. 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3, “Revised Stellar Parameters” (page unavailable), gives the cited distance of 133 ± 12 pc. It instead estimates the stellar radius as 1.13 ± 0.14 solar radii, not 0.99 ± 0.11, and the passages found do not give an angular diameter of 65.2 ± 9.3 μas. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites Kenworthy et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 10 (section 3.2, p. 11) gives the stated radius of 0.99 ± 0.11 solar radii and distance of 133 ± 12 pc. The paper does not state the claimed angular diameter of 65.2 ± 9.3 μas; the distance is credited there to van Werkhoven et al. (2014). (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The measured flux I (t) of J1407 can be closely approximated as a sequence of straight lines of different gradients (see van Werkhoven et al. 2014, for details).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 3.1. Fitting the Ring Orientation Using Light-curve Gradients
What the sources say
- Supportedcites van Werkhoven et al. 2014 source
In §4, Ring Model (page not specified), the authors say they fitted straight lines to selected constant-slope windows of J1407’s light curve and plotted those fits over the data. The Results (§5) also describe points where the slope changes, supporting the paraphrase that different segments have different gradients. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Using photometry averaged in 24 hr bins, a ring model with four broad rings is consistent with data on these timescales (Mamajek et al. 2012).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 4. INTERPRETING THE J1407B MODEL
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Mamajek et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.7, “A Preliminary Model” (page unavailable), reports a preliminary good fit to J1407’s daily averaged light curve. But the fitted model contains a thick inner disk and two rings; the additional outer ring is described as needed for other features and explicitly not included in that fit. Table 5 lists four ring components, but it does not establish that a four-ring model was fitted to the daily averaged data. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Assuming a sharp-edged opaque ring crossing the disk of the star with the ring edge perpendicular to the direction of motion, a minimum velocity of 33 km s -1 is derived (Kenworthy et al. 2015).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 5. THE ORBIT OF J1407B
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kenworthy et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.2.1 (p. 15) recalculates the transverse speed needed for a ring edge to cross J1407 and reports 32 ± 2 km s⁻¹, consistent with 33 km s⁻¹ within uncertainty. The cited passage does not specify that the edge is sharp, opaque, or perpendicular to the motion, and the citing sentence omits the reported uncertainty. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
- Probably not a substantial claim. 13
- It may state two separate claims as one. 37
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“After the gas is cleared out of the planetary system, dust in the circumplanetary disk then accretes into moons or remains as a ring system within the Roche limit of the planet (Canup & Ward 2002;Magni & Coradini 2004;Ward & Canup 2010).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Canup & Ward 2002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.4 describes solids in a circumplanetary disk accumulating to form satellites. But Section 3 says satellite growth occurred while the final gas inflow was still present, not after gas was cleared. The passages do not support the alternative that solids remain as a ring within the planet’s Roche limit; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Magni & Coradini 2004 source
- Partly supportedcites Ward & Canup 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction links circumplanetary disks to satellite formation, and the Conclusion discusses solids in a disk forming satellites. Neither passage says that, after gas is cleared, dust either accretes into moons or remains as rings within the planet’s Roche limit; searches for Roche limits and rings found no such passage. The indexed copy provides section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Circumstellar gas-rich disks disperse on timescales of <10 Myr, effectively limiting the runaway growth phase for gas giant planets (Williams & Cieza 2011).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Williams & Cieza 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 5.5 (p. 23) says gaseous inner disks last less than approximately 10 Myr, but cautions that significant gas may persist longer at larger radii. Section 5 (p. 19) says disk lifetime limits the time available for planet formation; it does not specifically identify the runaway growth phase of gas giants. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“They conclude that J1407b is almost certainly substellar (at >3σ significance), and possibly an exoplanet.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kenworthy et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.1.6 (p. 14) concludes that J1407b is substellar at 3.5σ for the circular-orbit models and says a planetary mass is possible. The citing sentence omits that condition: Table 12 (p. 18) gives stellar-mass probabilities of 0.5% and 1.2% for the elliptical-orbit cases, so the >3σ figure is not established for those cases. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boostedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It is highly probable that this is the largest gradient in the ring system since the secondary companion velocity derived from this gradient presents a challenge to the orbital dynamics for rings (see van Werkhoven et al. 2014;Kenworthy et al. 2015, for a detailed discussion).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 3.1. Fitting the Ring Orientation Using Light-curve Gradients
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites van Werkhoven et al. 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 6.2 identifies the highest observed light-curve slope, and the Figure 10 discussion says the speed calculated from it is incompatible with stable rings under the stated secondary-mass limit. The paper does not establish that this observed slope is highly probably the largest gradient anywhere in the ring system; it also discusses ring substructure as a possible explanation for the slope. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites Kenworthy et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.2.1 (p. 15) says the highest observed light-curve gradients require a transverse velocity of up to 32 ± 2 km/s, beyond what the paper's circular-orbit models can provide. The Conclusions (p. 17) say elliptical solutions that provide this velocity pose challenges for ring stability. The paper does not establish that the particular gradient referred to as “this” is probably the largest in the entire ring system. (LLM, conf=0.83)
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“At least 24 ring edges are required for the number of gradient changes detected in the J1407 data (van Werkhoven et al. 2014), but given the sparseness of the photometric coverage, this number is almost certainly higher.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 3.2. Fitting the Ring Structure
What the sources say
- Supportedcites van Werkhoven et al. 2014 source
The Results section reports at least 24 inflection points on ingress and says they indicate at least 24 different rings. That supports the cited minimum of 24 ring-related changes. The statement that sparse coverage makes the true number higher is presented as the citing authors’ inference, not as a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6 (hereafter J1407) is a pre-main-sequence, ∼16 Myr old, 0.9 M , V = 12.3 mag K5 star at 133 pc associated with the Sco-Cen OB association (Mamajek et al. 2012;van Werkhoven et al. 2014;Kenworthy et al. 2015).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Mamajek et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.1 (“The Star”; page unavailable) identifies J1407 as a pre-main-sequence Sco-Cen star and gives its age as ∼16 Myr, mass as 0.9 solar masses, K5 spectral type, and V magnitude as 12.31 ± 0.03. It gives a kinematic distance of 128 ± 13 pc, not the claimed 133 pc, although 133 pc falls within that uncertainty. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites van Werkhoven et al. 2014 source
The Abstract identifies J1407 as a V = 12.3 mag K5 pre-main-sequence star. Section 3 estimates a distance of 133 ± 12 pc using the Upper Centaurus-Lupus subgroup, adopts approximately 16 Myr as a representative age while allowing roughly 5–20 Myr, and adopts a mass of 0.9 ± 0.1 solar masses. The quoted values are therefore supported as approximate stellar parameters. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites Kenworthy et al. 2015 source
The Introduction (p. 1) identifies J1407 as a pre-main-sequence K5 star in the Sco-Cen OB association, approximately 16 Myr old and 0.9 solar masses. Table 10 (p. 11) gives its distance as 133 ± 12 pc, and Table 8 (p. 9) gives V = 12.336 ± 0.034 mag, consistent with the quoted V = 12.3 mag. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In the first attempt to model the system using nightly averaged photometry, Mamajek et al. (2012) posited at least four large rings girding J1407b.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Mamajek et al. (2012) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.7, “A Preliminary Model” (page not available), describes a fit to the daily averaged light curve with a thick inner disk and two rings; it says an additional outer ring is needed but is not included in that model. This supports four proposed dust structures around the companion, but not the claim that the initial model contained at least four rings. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The orbit for β Pictoris b is close to edge-on (Nielsen et al. 2014), indicating that it might transit its parent star.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Nielsen et al. 2014 source
Section 3.3 (page unavailable) reports an orbital inclination centered on 88.9°, close to edge-on. The Discussion (page unavailable) says the orbital fit cannot rule out a transit, supporting the stated possibility rather than asserting that a transit will occur. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A circular orbit is possible if the rings are themselves clumpy in nature and the clump orbital motion vectorially adds to the J1407b orbital motion van Werkhoven et al. (2014), but this again requires a series of coincidences to occur to generate a large gradient at the appropriate epochs.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 5.2. J1407b Is on a Bound Orbit
What the sources say
- Supportedcites van Werkhoven et al. 2014 source
Section 6.2 describes clumps in the rings whose motion can add to the occulting speed and account for a steep observed light-curve slope; Figure 11 explicitly shows a clump orbiting J1407b with its speed adding vectorially to the disc’s speed. The citation is attached to that proposed mechanism. The subsequent statement about a series of coincidences is the citing authors’ own qualification, not a finding attributed to this source. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Fomalhaut b is a comoving companion to the nearby 400 Myr old star, moving on an eccentric orbit (Kalas et al. 2013;Mamajek 2012).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kalas et al. 2013 source
The Inventory of the Fomalhaut System (§9.1; page unavailable) identifies Fomalhaut b as part of the system and states that its orbit is highly eccentric. The Kinematics section (§8.2; page unavailable) gives Fomalhaut A’s distance as 7.704 pc and age as 440 ± 40 Myr; §9.2 describes the system age as approximately 400 Myr. The paper’s orbital account supports the description of b as a comoving companion. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mamajek 2012 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“J1407b is substellar and almost certainly of planetary mass (Kenworthy et al. 2015).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 5.1. The Ring System is an Unbound Object
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kenworthy et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.1.6 (p. 14) concludes that J1407b is substellar, but says it is equally likely to be a brown dwarf or a planetary-mass object for disk-size values ξ > 0.3. The Conclusions (p. 17) likewise describe it as likely to be planetary- or brown-dwarf-mass, not almost certainly planetary-mass. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Constraints presented in Kenworthy et al. (2015) suggest a minimum eccentricity of 0.7 and a minimum period of 10 yr.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 5.2. J1407b Is on a Bound Orbit
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kenworthy et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.2.6 (p. 17) says the elliptical-orbit solution requires eccentricity greater than 0.7. The paper does not establish a minimum period of 10 years: Section 4.1.3 (p. 12) rules out periods below 850 days and a range around 4–7 years, while the Conclusions (p. 17) suggest a period shorter than about 15 years. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“although we note that the period could be as short as 10 yr and the mass can be greater than 80 M Jup , but this mass is considered highly unlikely, with a probability of less than 1.2%.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 4. INTERPRETING THE J1407B MODEL
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kenworthy et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.1.6 (p. 14) allows a mass above 80 M_Jup at some orbital periods, and Table 11 (p. 15) gives probable periods near 10 years. The paper finds such a mass highly unlikely, but Table 12 (p. 18) gives a probability of exactly 1.2% for one elliptical-orbit model, not less than 1.2% for every model. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A large ring system around the planet is thought to cause the anomalously bright flux seen in optical images.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kalas et al. 2013 source
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes Fomalhaut b’s unexpectedly high optical luminosity and says reflected light from a circumplanetary dust disk could account for its visible-light flux. Section 9.3.2 (page unavailable) further discusses a planetary ring/cloud system as a possible source of brighter scattered light. The citing sentence presents this as a proposed explanation, not an established cause. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are 16,489 photometric data points covering the 2007 observing season of J1407 (MJD 54,131.96 to 54,306.72).”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 3.2. Fitting the Ring Structure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our derived ring model is consistent with the data, yielding a diameter of 1.2 AU for the ring system.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 5.1. The Ring System is an Unbound Object
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gaps in the ring system are seen either directly as the photometric flux from J1407 returning to full transmission during the eclipse or indirectly as a fit of the model to intermediate transmission photometric gradients.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 4. INTERPRETING THE J1407B MODEL
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The order-of-magnitude estimate for the total mass of the rings is ∼100 M Moon , close to the mass of the Earth.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Dust opacity κ ∼ 0.02 cm^2 g^-1 for unity optical depth.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We cannot examine the J1407b data for Δt 1 as there is no recorded photometry within 3 days of t .”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 4.1. Notable Timescales in the Giant Exoring Model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The size of the ring system is considerably larger than the Roche radius for the secondary companion and fills a significant fraction of the Hill radius.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only one eclipse of J1407 is seen in the publically available photometric data, and so we do not know the orbital period of J1407b or even whether it is bound to J1407 in a closed orbit.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 5. THE ORBIT OF J1407B
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The large size of the ring system presents a challenge to what type of orbit it must have around the primary star, which we address in Section 5.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 1. INTRODUCTION
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This eclipse and model imply that we are seeing a circumplanetary disk undergoing a dynamic transition to an exosatellite-sculpted ring structure, which is one of the first seen outside our solar system.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > Abstract
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The primary star and ring system are at a similar distance from the Earth.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The ring system is at least several times larger than the angular size of the primary star.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The orbit of the secondary companion during the eclipse can be approximated as a straight line with constant relative velocity v.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The rings orbit the secondary companion in Keplerian orbits that are circular.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The ring particles in aggregate can be approximated by a smooth screen with an optical transmission τ(r) that varies as a function of radial distance r from the center of the secondary companion.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The rings are azimuthally symmetric.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The rings are considerably thinner than their diameter (thin ring approximation).
- The authors state this as an assumption: All rings have well-defined edges and have a constant transmission across the width of the ring.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The ring system lies in a plane that contains both the rings and the equatorial plane of the secondary companion (the ring plane).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The function G(t) represents the maximum flux change possible between a fully transparent and fully opaque ring.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 3.1. Fitting the Ring Orientation Using Light-curve Gradients
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The photometric data are sparse (the binned data cover 11.3% of the total 2007 season), and so no unique solutions for the disk geometry and τ (r) are found.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 3.2. Fitting the Ring Structure
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The finite diameter of the star breaks this degeneracy, and so the ingress and egress light curves for a given ring edge radius are not identical.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 3.2. Fitting the Ring Structure
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ring system has one clearly defined gap at 0.4 AU (6.1 × 10 7 km), which, we hypothesize, is being cleared out by a <0.8 M ⊕ exosatellite orbiting around J1407b.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > Abstract
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The primary star and ring system are at a similar distance from the Earth.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The ring system is at least several times larger than the angular size of the primary star.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The orbit of the secondary companion during the eclipse can be approximated as a straight line with constant relative velocity v.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The rings orbit the secondary companion in Keplerian orbits that are circular.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The ring particles in aggregate can be approximated by a smooth screen with an optical transmission τ(r) that varies as a function of radial distance r from the center of the secondary companion.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The rings are azimuthally symmetric.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The rings are considerably thinner than their diameter (thin ring approximation).
- The authors state this as an assumption: All rings have well-defined edges and have a constant transmission across the width of the ring.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The ring system lies in a plane that contains both the rings and the equatorial plane of the secondary companion (the ring plane).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A circular orbit for J1407b would mean that any ring system would not be subject to gravitational perturbations due to the orbit of J1407b, and so appears preferable for ring stability.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 5.2. J1407b Is on a Bound Orbit
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two such processes are (1) the formation of exomoons that are gravitationally clearing out these gaps, such as those sculpting the A-ring gaps in Saturn, and (2) the presence of Lindbad resonances, caused by the presence of unseen exosatellites at larger radii.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Gaps in the rings of solar system giant planets are caused either directly by the gravitational clearing of a satellite or indirectly by a Lindblad resonance due to a satellite on a larger orbit.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One conclusion with these eccentric orbits is that the ring system is within the Hill sphere for most of its orbit, but at periastron the Hill sphere shrinks down below the size of the outermost rings, providing a challenge for investigations into the stability of this ring system.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 5.2. J1407b Is on a Bound Orbit
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The longest period is unconstrained in this model, as very highly eccentric orbits are possible with the long axis pointing toward Earth, but the probability of such a precise alignment becomes increasingly unlikely.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 5.2. J1407b Is on a Bound Orbit
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This is due to the dominance of solar perturbations over the gravitational perturbation caused by the J 2 contribution of Saturn's gravitational field.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 4. INTERPRETING THE J1407B MODEL
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Verbiscer et al. 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mass of the rings is dependent on the orbital parameters of J1407b, the effective dust opacity in the rings, the detailed dust size distribution, and the unknown ring structure where there is no photometric constraint.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Dust opacity κ ∼ 0.02 cm^2 g^-1 for unity optical depth.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Truncating the eccentricity to be between 0.7 and 0.8 gives a probable mass of 24 M Jup and a probable period of 13.3 yr.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 5.2. J1407b Is on a Bound Orbit
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the case of the largest ring around Saturn, the Phoebe ring is not coplanar with the other rings (Verbiscer et al. 2009) but lies in the plane of Saturn's orbit.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 4. INTERPRETING THE J1407B MODEL
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Verbiscer et al. 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Its age of 22 Myr (Mamajek & Bell 2014) is similar to the J1407 system, implying that a low-mass companion could have a fast rotation period, leading to a larger oblateness and corresponding J 2 contribution, that could hold ring structures in the equatorial plane out to larger radii.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 4. INTERPRETING THE J1407B MODEL
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mamajek & Bell 2014 source
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the case of 23.8 M Jup this corresponds to a satellite mass of 0.8 M ⊕ and an orbital period of 1.7 yr.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 4. INTERPRETING THE J1407B MODEL
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The gap is equal to the diameter of the Hill sphere of a satellite orbiting around the secondary companion and clearing out the ring.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The estimated size of the ring system is two orders of magnitude larger than the Roche limit for the central substellar mass, and so the rings outside the Roche limit are expected to accrete into satellites on timescales shorter then gigayears.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 5.1. The Ring System is an Unbound Object
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This implies that this structure is in a transitional state, with the rings at large radii undergoing accretion to form exosatellites orbiting the secondary companion.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The planet β Pictoris b was recently shown to have a rotation period of ∼8 hr (Snellen et al. 2014), faster than that of the other gas giants in the solar system.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 4. INTERPRETING THE J1407B MODEL
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Snellen et al. 2014 source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Transverse velocities derived from the light-curve gradients, however, strongly rule out long orbital periods, but the lack of a second primary eclipse in time-series photometry rules out short orbital periods.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 5.2. J1407b Is on a Bound Orbit
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is interesting to note that the satellite in J1407b has a similar mass (to an order of magnitude) as the rings, implying that further accretion into satellites is ongoing.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These discrepancies imply an error in the determined geometry of the ring plane and/or that the rings are not coplanar.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the light curve is folded at time of closest approach, the coverage approximately doubles to 20%.This implies that there are at least 24/0.2≈ 120 ring edges in the J1407b system.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Anomalous photometry of β Pictoris in 1981 (Lecavelier Des Etangs et al. 1995) has also been attributed to an extended system of material surrounding the planet, and the anomalous photometry extends over 30 days, implying that there is material extending out to 0.1 of the Hill radius of the planet.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lecavelier Des Etangs et al. 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The orbital period of J1407b is on the order of a decade or possibly longer.”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The primary star and ring system are at a similar distance from the Earth.
“We assume that the primary star and ring system are at a similar distance from the Earth, and that the ring system is at least several times larger than the angular size of the primary star.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The ring system is at least several times larger than the angular size of the primary star.
“We assume that the primary star and ring system are at a similar distance from the Earth, and that the ring system is at least several times larger than the angular size of the primary star.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The orbit of the secondary companion during the eclipse can be approximated as a straight line with constant relative velocity v.
“We approximate the orbit of the secondary for the duration of the eclipse as being a straight line, with constant relative velocity of v.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The rings orbit the secondary companion in Keplerian orbits that are circular.
“The rings are composed of individual particles that orbit the secondary companion in Keplerian orbits, assumed circular.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The ring particles in aggregate can be approximated by a smooth screen with an optical transmission τ(r) that varies as a function of radial distance r from the center of the secondary companion.
“These particles scatter light out of any incident beam and in aggregate are approximated by a smooth screen with an optical transmission of τ (r) that varies as a function of radial distance r from the center of the secondary companion.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The rings are azimuthally symmetric.
“The rings are assumed to be azimuthally symmetric; the inclination of the ring plane as seen from the Earth is i disk (with 0 o being face-on), and the projected angle between the normal of the secondary companion's orbit and the normal of the ring plane is φ disk .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The rings are considerably thinner than their diameter (thin ring approximation).
“The rings are assumed to be considerably thinner than their diameter, i.e., a”
The authors state this as an assumption.
All rings have well-defined edges and have a constant transmission across the width of the ring.
“We assume that all the rings have well-defined edges and have a constant transmission across the width of the ring (with some assumed constant τ ); see Figure 2.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The ring system lies in a plane that contains both the rings and the equatorial plane of the secondary companion (the ring plane).
“Surrounding the secondary companion is a ring system in a plane that contains both the rings and the equatorial plane of the secondary companion, which we refer to as the ring plane.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Gaps in the rings of solar system giant planets are caused either directly by the gravitational clearing of a satellite or indirectly by a Lindblad resonance due to a satellite on a larger orbit.
“Gaps in the rings of solar system giant planets are caused either directly by the gravitational clearing of a satellite or indirectly by a Lindblad resonance due to a satellite on a larger orbit.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The gap is equal to the diameter of the Hill sphere of a satellite orbiting around the secondary companion and clearing out the ring.
“If we assume that the gap is equal to the diameter of the Hill sphere of a satellite orbiting around the secondary companion and clearing out the ring”
The paper relies on this without support.
The mean projected separation between stars in the field is ≈10^3 AU.
“The mean projected separation between stars in the field is ≈10 3 AU.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Dust opacity κ ∼ 0.02 cm^2 g^-1 for unity optical depth.
“We estimate the mass of the individual rings by assuming a dust opacity of κ ∼ 0.02 cm 2 g -1 for unity optical depth, as assumed in Mamajek et al. (2012) for their estimate.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The ratio of the mass of the densest rings around Saturn (the B ring system) to that of the largest satellite, Titan, is approximately 1/4000.
“The ratio of the mass of the densest rings around Saturn (the B ring system) to that of the largest satellite, Titan, is approximately 1/4000.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“An orbital period of 11 year only permitted eccentricities up to e 0.8 (Von Werkhoven et al., 2014;Kenworthy and Mamajek 2015;Rieder and Kenworthy 2016), which we take as an upper limit for eccentricity in our models.”
From A Self-Gravitating Exoring Around J1407b and Implications for In-Situ Exomoon Formation (2022) · cites this paper as Kenworthy and Mamajek 2015
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Modelling of a planetary ring transit by Kenworthy & Mamajek (2015) found that the most significant gap was located at 0.4𝐴𝑈 , yet other small gaps appear on the ring model. Most notable is a ~0.00668𝐴𝑈 wide gap at ~0.34𝐴𝑈 .”
From Mean motion resonances with nearby moons: an unlikely origin for the gaps observed in the ring around the exoplanet J1407b (2019) · cites this paper as Kenworthy & Mamajek 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A possible solution to the unusual transit of J1407b across the primary was shown to be a large planetary ring that extends 0.6𝐴𝑈 radially from the planet.”
From Mean motion resonances with nearby moons: an unlikely origin for the gaps observed in the ring around the exoplanet J1407b (2019) · cites this paper as Kenworthy & Mamajek 2015
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Subsequent work analysing the single transit suggests the cause was by a secondary companion with a mass 5 -20 M Jup (Mentel et al., 2018) and a ring system filling a significant fraction of its Hill sphere (Van Werkhoven et al., 2014;Kenworthy and Mamajek 2015;Rieder and Kenworthy 2016).”
From A Self-Gravitating Exoring Around J1407b and Implications for In-Situ Exomoon Formation (2022) · cites this paper as Kenworthy and Mamajek 2015
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A key observation of the original transit suggested a gap in the ring could be indirect evidence of an exomoon.”
From A Self-Gravitating Exoring Around J1407b and Implications for In-Situ Exomoon Formation (2022) · cites this paper as Kenworthy and Mamajek 2015
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Like Saturn's ring, J1407b's ring is not radially uniform; instead, there are hints of an unseen exomoon in the form of gaps; or regions with relatively low surface densities.”
From A Self-Gravitating Exoring Around J1407b and Implications for In-Situ Exomoon Formation (2022) · cites this paper as Kenworthy and Mamajek 2015
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While the transmission through the ring significantly increases at the location of this gap it is not the same as reported by Kenworthy and Mamajek (2015), which had an optical depth of τ 0.00 at the same radial location.”
From A Self-Gravitating Exoring Around J1407b and Implications for In-Situ Exomoon Formation (2022) · cites this paper as Kenworthy and Mamajek 2015
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“An interesting feature in one of the retrograde models, e 0.6, shows a gap centred around 0.4AU, which is also the location identified as a gap from the transit (Kenworthy and Mamajek 2015).”
From A Self-Gravitating Exoring Around J1407b and Implications for In-Situ Exomoon Formation (2022) · cites this paper as Kenworthy and Mamajek 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 6. CONCLUSIONS
“For a secondary companion mass of 28 M Jup , we interpret one of the most welldefined ring gaps at 6.1 × 10 7 km with a width of 4 × 10 6 km to be cleared by a satellite with an upper mass of <0.8 M ⊕ .”
§ MODELING GIANT EXTRASOLAR RING SYSTEMS IN ECLIPSE AND THE CASE OF J1407B: SCULPTING BY EXOMOONS? > 4. INTERPRETING THE J1407B MODEL
“m sat ≈ 3 M b d hill 2a 3 = 0.8 M ⊕ M J 1407b 23.8 M Jup .”
Citations
Cites
Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.30-5638 · Cited by 17,933
Protoplanetary Disks and Their Evolution
Williams, J. P., & Cieza, L. A. (2011) · Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102548 · Cited by 1,403 · cited 1×
“Circumstellar gas-rich disks disperse on timescales of 10 Myr, effectively limiting the runaway growth phase for gas giant planets (Williams & Cieza 2011).”
BackgroundThe WASP Project and the SuperWASP Cameras
Pollacco, D. L., Skillen, I., Cameron, A. C., Christian, D. J., Hellier, C., Irwin, J., Lister, T. A., Street, R. A., West, R. G., Anderson, D., et al. (2006) · Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · doi:10.1086/508556 · Cited by 1,244 · cited 2×
“The complex light curve of J1407 was first discussed in Mamajek et al. (2012), where intensity fluctuations of up to 95% were seen over a 56 day period in April and May 2007 towards this young (∼ 16 Myr) K5 premain sequence star in photometry taken as part of the SuperWASP Survey (Pollacco et al. 2006; Butters et al.…”
BackgroundClaret, A., & Bloemen, S. (2011) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116451 · Cited by 1,155 · cited 1×
“( 12− 12u+ 3πu 12− 4u ) (1) The limb darkening of the star is parameterised by u = 0.8(5) for J1407 (Claret & Bloemen 2011).”
BackgroundInfluentialModels of very-low-mass stars, brown dwarfs and exoplanets
Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0269 · Cited by 921 · cited 1×
“Direct imaging limits reported in Kenworthy et al. (2015) constrain such a free-floating object to be 8MJup, assuming an age of 16 Myr and BT-SETTL models (Allard et al. 2012).”
BackgroundThe WASP Project and the SuperWASP CamerasPreprint
Pollacco, D. L., Skillen, I., Cameron, A. C., Christian, D. J., Hellier, C., Irwin, J., Lister, T. A., Street, R. A., West, R. G., Anderson, D., et al. (2006) · Cited by 773
Planet-Disk Interaction and Orbital Evolution
Kley, W., & Nelson, R. P. (2012) · Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125523 · Cited by 722 · cited 1×
“…of the resultant planetary systems is dictated by the structure and composition of the disk, its interaction with the young star, and the competing formation mechanisms that transfer circumstellar material onto accreting protoplanets (e.g. see reviews by Armitage 2011; Kley & Nelson 2012).”
BackgroundDavies, M. (1979) · Cited by 605
Dynamics of Protoplanetary Disks
Armitage, P. J. (2011) · Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102521 · Cited by 509 · cited 1×
“…of the resultant planetary systems is dictated by the structure and composition of the disk, its interaction with the young star, and the competing formation mechanisms that transfer circumstellar material onto accreting protoplanets (e.g. see reviews by Armitage 2011; Kley & Nelson 2012).”
BackgroundFormation of the Galilean Satellites: Conditions of Accretion
Canup, R. M., & Ward, W. R. (2002) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1086/344684 · Cited by 433 · cited 1×
“After the gas is cleared out of the planetary system, dust in the circumplanetary disk then accretes into moons or remains as a ring system within the Roche limit of the planet (Canup & Ward 2002; Magni & Coradini 2004; Ward & Canup 2010).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20030430 · DOI
- Graczyk, 2011, AcA, 61, 103
- Lecavelier Des Etangs, 1995, A&A, 299, 557
- White, 1987, VA, 30, 13
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–122 of 122
A Search for Ringed Exoplanets using Kepler PhotometryPreprint
Heising, M. Z., Marcy, G. W., & Schlichting, H. E. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.01083 · Cited by 2
“…of an extrasolar ringlike structure (Mamajek et al. 2012) yet it is unlike any object in our solar system; it has an outer edge extending to 0.6 AU (Kenworthy & Mamajek 2015) and is thought not to be a stable planetary ring but rather a disk in which either planets or satellites are forming,…”
BackgroundInfluentialBeyond Circular Eclipsers (BeyonCE) light curve modelling: I. Shallot Explorer
van Dam, D. M., & Kenworthy, M. A. (2024) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245620 · Cited by 1
Self-citationOn the Detection of Exorings in Reflected Light with JWST NIRCam
Bowens-Rubin, R., Limbach, M., Hopper, S., Stephenson, K. S., Garza, M., Fletcher, L., & Hedman, M. (2025) · Astronomical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae0a2b · Cited by 3
Shah, S., Marshall, J. P., del Burgo, C., Hajdu, G., Rebollido, I., Pilecki, B., Mahabal, A. A., Zeegers, S. T., Reddy, B. E., Kemper, F., et al. (2025) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2251 · Cited by 1
Constraining the nature of the possible extrasolar PDS110b ring system
Pinheiro, T. F. L. L., & Sfair, R. (2021) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039556 · Cited by 2
Dynamical Interactions and Mass Loss within the Uranian System
Kane, S., & Li, Z.-X. (2023) · The Planetary Science Journal · doi:10.3847/psj/ad05ce
International observational campaign of the 2014 eclipse of EE Cephei
Pieńkowski, D., Gałan, C., Tomov, T. V., et al. (2020) · Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937181/pdf · Cited by 1
Insights into Planet Formation from Debris Disks
Wyatt, M. C., & Jackson, A. P. (2016) · Space sciences series of ISSI · doi:10.1007/978-94-024-1518-6_9 · Cited by 1
Eyeing up a Jupiter-like exoplanet
Mawet, D. P. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad0904
Seeing the Shadow of Rings around a “Super Saturn”
Kenworthy, M. A. (2016) · Frontiers for Young Minds · doi:10.3389/frym.2016.00025
Self-citationWhy exomoons must be rare?Preprint
Rosaev, A. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1701.03035
Tools for Transit and Radial Velocity Modeling and Analysis
Deeg, H. J. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_13
A search for transiting companions in the J1407 (V1400 Cen) system
Barmentloo, S., Dik, C., Kenworthy, M. A., Mamajek, E. E., Hambsch, F.-J., Reichart, D. E., Rodriguez, J. E., & van Dam, D. M. (2021) · Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140768/pdf · Cited by 1
Self-citationSatellites and Rings of the Giant Planets
Coustenis, A., Fulchignoni, M., & Roques, F. (2021) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119881698.ch1
Kegerreis, J. (2020) · Springer theses · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-49958-7_1
Tools for Transit and Radial Velocity Modelling and Analysis
Deeg, H. J. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30648-3_13-1
Direct detectability of tidally heated exomoons by photometric orbital modulation
Kleisioti, E., Dirkx, D., Tan, X., et al. (2024) · Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449428/pdf
Self-citationDomainko, W. F. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-69339-1_4
Rings around giant planets and smaller bodies
Ohtsuki, K. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21439-4.00144-9
“While unusual transit data have been interpreted as giant planetary rings with a radius of 0.6 au (Kenworthy and Mamajek, 2015) and possibility of some of “super-pu ff s”, a class of exoplanets with exceptionally large radii, being ringed planets has been suggested (e.g., Akinsanmi et al., 2020),…”
InfluentialLikelihood and Appearance of Life Beyond the Earth: An Astronomical Perspective
van der Tak, F. F. S. (2026) · Contemporary Religion and Popular Culture · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-08966-3_2
WISE J005128.08+645651.7: An enigmatic R Coronae Borealis star
Budaj, J., Bernhard, K., & Hubený, I. (2026) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557525
Metadata
- Authors
- Kenworthy, M. A., & Mamajek, E. E.
- Affiliations
- Leiden University (NL)
- University of Rochester (US)
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2015-02-18
- Volume
- 800
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 126
- ISSN
- 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4357
- OpenAlex
- W2156132705
- Semantic Scholar
- 700a0cad85744653bc2a30139860bae499ec0b5f
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 10
- FWCI
- 10.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1313029)
- University of Leicester
- Queen's University Belfast
- Queen's University
- Keele University
- Science and Technology Facilities Council
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Space and Planetary Science › Astro and Planetary Science
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
- Keywords
- exomoons, circumplanetary disks, ring gaps, Hill sphere, light curve modeling
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
