![]() |
Figure 1:
Output difference image of ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 2: Image contrast achieved in the NB4.05 filter with the ADI technique. Solid line: the full combined data set. Dashed and dotted lines: the two individual observing runs before co-addition. |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 3:
Six artificial companions at 3![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 4: Difference in performance between when ADI is used and when it is not. A positive number means that the contrast has increased when using ADI, for a single object signature. |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 5:
Comparison of different high-contrast methods in terms of detectable mass of companions (in the simulated range of 1-10
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 6:
Detection limits for ages of (from top to bottom) 800 Myr, 600 Myr, 400 Myr, and 200 Myr. Also plotted is the mass corresponding to the linear RV trend (solid line increasing with separation) given the ![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 7:
Detection probability as a function of semi-major axis, at an age of 200 Myr. Thick lines:
![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 8: Same as Fig. 7, but at an age of 800 Myr. |
Open with DEXTER |