MADYS: the Manifold Age Determination for Young Stars - I. Isochronal age estimates and model comparison

Open Access

Table 4

Mass estimates for the planets in the HR 8799 system.

Source	Age Myr	b M_J	c M_J	d M_J	e M_J	Method
Marois et al. (2008)	30–60	5–7	7–10	7–10	7–10	photometric
Wilner et al. (2018)	–		–	–	–	dynamical
Wang et al. (2018)	42 ± 5	5.8 ± 0.5				photometric
Goździewski & Migaszewski (2020)		5.7 ± 0.4	7.8 ± 0.5	9.1 ± 0.2	7.4 ± 0.6	dynamical
Brandt et al. (2021b)		–	–	–		dynamical
Sepulveda & Bowler (2022)	10–23	2.7–4.9	4.1–7.0	4.1–7.0	4.1–7.0	photometric
Zurlo et al. (2022)	–	5.54–6.20	6.84–8.10	9.07–10.05	7.11–10.66	dynamical
MADYS (this work)	10–23					AMES-Dusty
	30–60					AMES-Dusty
	10–23					q
	30–60					q
	10–23					Ames-Cond
	30–60					Ames-Cond
	10–23					Sonora Bobcat
	30–60					Sonora Bobcat

Notes. We compare the best-fit results from madys with photometric and dynamical masses taken from the literature. Two age ranges (t e 10–23 Myr, t ∈ 30–60 Myr) and four models are used for the independent estimates.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.