pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.21770 · v1 · pith:7XMV4QLXnew · submitted 2026-06-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Radiatively Controlled Thermal Stability of High-Altitude Clouds in Exoplanetary Atmospheres

Taro M. Shefferson-Nagata , Kazumasa Ohno This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 12:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanet atmospherescloud stabilityradiative equilibriumsilicate cloudssulfide cloudshigh-altitude aerosolsJWST observations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Silicate condensates remain thermally stable for cloud formation in exoplanet upper atmospheres across wide conditions, whereas sulfide condensates heat to sublimation even around temperate planets.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper calculates the temperatures that individual cloud particles reach when heated by starlight and cooled by their own infrared emission. In the thin upper atmosphere, these particle temperatures often differ from the gas temperature used in standard models. Silicates like quartz and forsterite stay cool enough to persist, but sulfides like zinc sulfide and sodium sulfide warm above their stability limits. This separation explains why some cloud compositions can appear at high altitudes while others cannot, and it aligns with recent observations of specific hot Jupiters.

Core claim

By solving the radiative energy balance for eight cloud condensates, the authors show that particle temperatures fall into composition-dependent groups. Silicate condensates maintain temperatures below their condensation points in a wide range of stellar and planetary conditions, while sulfide condensates reach sublimation temperatures even on temperate planets. Specific planets like WASP-17b and HD 189733b are in the stable regime for SiO2 clouds.

What carries the argument

Radiative equilibrium temperature for cloud particles, obtained by balancing absorbed stellar radiation against emitted infrared radiation and compared to each material's condensation temperature.

If this is right

  • SiO2 clouds are possible on the daysides of WASP-17b and HD 189733b.
  • Fe clouds are ruled out on the dayside of WASP-17b despite gas temperatures allowing formation.
  • Al2O3 clouds exist only in a narrow vertical region on WASP-17b.
  • Sulfide clouds are unlikely at high altitudes on most exoplanets examined.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Cloud composition inferences from spectra may need revision if particle temperatures differ from gas temperatures.
  • Future observations could map which condensates appear at which pressures to test the radiative control.
  • Similar calculations might apply to clouds on cooler planets or in different wavelength regimes.

Load-bearing premise

Cloud particle temperatures are controlled only by radiative heating from the star and infrared cooling, with gas collisions and latent heat playing negligible roles at low pressures.

What would settle it

Detection of sulfide clouds at pressures low enough that the model predicts they should have sublimated, or direct spectroscopic measurement showing particle temperatures matching gas temperatures instead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.21770 by Kazumasa Ohno, Taro M. Shefferson-Nagata.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Onset of particle–gas thermal decoupling. Left: Decoupling pressure Pdec as a function of planetary equilibrium temperature Teq for the eight condensates considered in this study. Here, Pdec is defined by |Tp − Tgas|/Tgas = 0.05, and we assume an isothermal atmosphere of Tgas = Teq, cloud particle radius of 0.1 µm and 6000 K black body radiation as an incident stellar spectrum. Right: Pressure-dependent pa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Representative examples of the wavelength-dependent absorption efficiency Qabs(a, λ) for Fe, MnS, and Mg2SiO4, overlaid with normalized blackbody curves at 6000 K and 1000 K. We set the particle radius to a = 0.1 µm. We compute the absorption efficiency of cloud particles Qabs(a, λ) based on Mie theory using the open-source Python package miepython (Prahl 2026). We carry out the calcula￾tions for various s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Particle equilibrium temperature Tp as a function of blackbody temperature Tbb. Different colored lines show the particle temperature for different condensates. We set the particle radius to 10 µm and stellar effective temperature to Teff = 5000K. begins to play a role in particle cooling 5 . These species ex￾hibit temperatures much hotter than the blackbody tempera￾ture, which significantly affects their … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Particle equilibrium temperature Tp versus particle ra￾dius a at selected Tbb for the eight condensates considered in this study. We fix the stellar effective temperature to Teff = 5000 K and the orbital distance to yield Tbb = 1000 K. dependence on particle size follows a simple law: smaller particles become warmer, and temperatures of larger parti￾cles tend to approach a blackbody temperature. Smaller pa… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Particle equilibrium temperature Tp as a function of stellar effective temperature Teff. Different colored lines repre￾sent different condensate species. The particle radius is fixed at a = 10 µm, the stellar radius at 1 R⊙, and the blackbody temper￾ature at Tbb = 1000 K. the absorption efficiency Qabs of KCl becomes significantly larger. At the same time, the characteristic wavelength of thermal emission … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The critical planetary equilibrium temperature Tcri as a function of stellar effective temperature Teff for KCl, ZnS, Na2S, MnS, Fe, and Al2O3. The shaded regions denote the Teq—Teff spaces at which the particle temperatures are cool enough to avoid sublimation. The dash-dot lines show the Teq = Tcond relations for reference. We set the particle radius to 0.1 µm. The calculations assume P = 10−3 bar and [F… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gas temperature profile (black dashed) and equilibrium particle temperatures of Al2O3, Mg2SiO4, Fe, MnS, SiO2 (solid lines) that potentially form as clouds on WASP-17b. The dotted lines show the condensation curves with [Fe/H] = +1.7 for each condensate. We fix a particle radius to a = 0.1 µm. 4.2. Relevance to Previous Studies of Exoplanetary Clouds Several studies attempted to constrain cloud composition… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Particle temperature normalized by the gas temperature as a function of pressure and particle radius for SiO2, Mg2SiO4, Fe, and Al2O3. The hatched region denotes the phase space where the particle temperature exceeds the condensation temperature, leading to the sublimation of clouds. and by hydrocarbon hazes below that temperature. Gao et al. (2020) attributed the silicate dominance primarily to high nucle… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Vertical profiles of salt cloud temperatures on the sub-Neptune GJ1214 b. The green, orange, and purple lines show the temperatures of KCl, ZnS, and Na2S clouds, respectively, along with their condensation temperatures for [M/H]= 3.0. The dashed, dash-dot, and solid colored lines show the temperatures for particle radii of a = 0.1, 0.3 and 1.0 µm, respectively. the west part of the dayside to some extent … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: summarizes the wavelength-dependent absorption efficiencies of all condensates considered in this study at several particle radii. 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 Wavelength ( m) 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 1 A b s o r p tio n E f ficie n c y Q a b s Qabs Mg2SiO4 Particle Radius a = 0.01 m a = 0.03 m a = 0.1 m a = 0.3 m a = 1 m a = 3 m a = 10 m a = 30 m a = 100 m 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 Wavelength ( m) 10 … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

One of the most striking findings of exoplanetary science is the ubiquity of clouds. A conventional approach to infer the cloud compositions is to utilize the thermochemical equilibrium model assuming the same temperature shared with clouds and ambient gases; however, this assumption is actually not always valid, especially in the tenuous upper atmospheres where particle-gas collisions are infrequent. In this study, we investigate the radiative equilibrium temperatures of exoplanetary clouds to assess the thermal stability of aerosols in the low atmospheric pressure limit. For eight cloud-forming condensates (KCl, ZnS, Na$_2$S, MnS, SiO$_2$, Mg$_2$SiO$_4$, Fe, and Al$_2$O$_3$), we solve the energy balance between stellar radiative heating and infrared cooling to calculate the particle temperature, which is then compared with their condensation temperatures. We find three composition-dependent groups in the particle-temperature behavior, and show that silicate condensates (SiO$_2$ and Mg$_2$SiO$_4$) maintain a cool enough temperature in a wide range of stellar and planetary conditions. Conversely, sulfide condensates (ZnS, Na$_2$S, and MnS) are readily heated to their sublimation temperatures even on temperate planets. WASP-17b and HD 189733b fall within the thermodynamically stable regime for SiO$_2$ clouds, consistent with recent JWST observations. We also examine the vertical profiles of cloud temperatures on WASP-17b, showing that Fe clouds cannot exist on the dayside, and Al$_2$O$_3$ clouds can exist only in a confined region, even though atmospheric temperature appears to allow the formation of these clouds. This study provides novel insights on cloud compositions in upper exoplanetary atmospheres, testable by upcoming atmospheric surveys of JWST and Ariel.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript calculates radiative equilibrium temperatures for eight cloud condensates (KCl, ZnS, Na2S, MnS, SiO2, Mg2SiO4, Fe, Al2O3) by balancing stellar absorption against infrared emission, then compares these particle temperatures to condensation/sublimation temperatures. It reports three composition-dependent behavioral groups, concluding that silicates remain thermally stable across wide stellar/planetary conditions while sulfides heat to sublimation even on temperate planets; specific applications are made to WASP-17b, HD 189733b, and vertical profiles on WASP-17b.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a first-principles radiative-equilibrium alternative to thermochemical-equilibrium assumptions for high-altitude cloud stability, directly linking optical properties to observable cloud compositions and offering testable predictions for JWST and Ariel. The explicit energy-balance calculations and application to observed planets constitute clear strengths.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / §2] Abstract and §2 (Methods): The claim that particle-gas collisions and latent-heat exchange are negligible (justifying the pure radiative-equilibrium treatment) is load-bearing for the stability conclusions, yet no quantitative comparison of collision frequency (kinetic-theory mean free path or rate) versus radiative timescale is provided for the modeled pressures or the WASP-17b dayside profile.
  2. [Results] Results section (grouping into three classes): The partition of condensates into stable (silicates), unstable (sulfides), and intermediate groups is presented without explicit quantitative criteria, thresholds, or sensitivity metrics; the separation therefore appears post-hoc and its robustness to uncertainties in optical constants is untested.
  3. [§4] §4 (WASP-17b vertical profiles): The statements that Fe clouds cannot exist on the dayside and Al2O3 clouds are confined to a narrow region rest on the same unquantified radiative-equilibrium assumption; without the collision-timescale validation, these specific non-existence claims cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (2)
  1. No error bars, Monte-Carlo realizations, or sensitivity tests on the adopted optical constants or condensation temperatures are reported, limiting assessment of robustness.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states consistency with JWST observations for WASP-17b and HD 189733b but provides no direct quantitative comparison (e.g., retrieved cloud altitudes or temperatures).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / §2] Abstract and §2 (Methods): The claim that particle-gas collisions and latent-heat exchange are negligible (justifying the pure radiative-equilibrium treatment) is load-bearing for the stability conclusions, yet no quantitative comparison of collision frequency (kinetic-theory mean free path or rate) versus radiative timescale is provided for the modeled pressures or the WASP-17b dayside profile.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative validation of the negligible collision assumption would strengthen the paper. In the revised manuscript, we have included a new subsection in §2 with estimates of the mean free path and collision rates using kinetic theory at pressures from 10^{-6} to 10^{-3} bar, compared to the radiative cooling timescale calculated from the particle's emissivity and temperature. This shows that radiative timescales are orders of magnitude shorter than collision times in the upper atmosphere, justifying the pure radiative equilibrium approach for the conditions considered. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section (grouping into three classes): The partition of condensates into stable (silicates), unstable (sulfides), and intermediate groups is presented without explicit quantitative criteria, thresholds, or sensitivity metrics; the separation therefore appears post-hoc and its robustness to uncertainties in optical constants is untested.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the grouping would benefit from explicit criteria. We have revised the Results section to define quantitative thresholds based on the temperature difference between the particle equilibrium temperature and the condensation temperature: 'stable' if ΔT < -200 K across the explored parameter space, 'unstable' if ΔT > 100 K, and 'intermediate' otherwise. We have also added a sensitivity test varying the optical constants by ±20% (within typical uncertainties for these materials) and confirmed that the group assignments remain unchanged. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4] §4 (WASP-17b vertical profiles): The statements that Fe clouds cannot exist on the dayside and Al2O3 clouds are confined to a narrow region rest on the same unquantified radiative-equilibrium assumption; without the collision-timescale validation, these specific non-existence claims cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: These statements rely on the radiative equilibrium model. With the addition of the collision timescale analysis in the revised §2, the assumption is now quantitatively supported for the relevant pressures. We have updated §4 to reference this validation and note that the conclusions apply specifically in the low-density limit where particle-gas collisions are infrequent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses external inputs

full rationale

The paper derives particle temperatures by solving the radiative energy balance equation using optical properties and condensation temperatures taken from prior literature. No parameters are fitted to the stability conclusions, no self-citation chain supports the central partition into stable/unstable groups, and the derivation does not reduce to a renaming or self-definition. The assumption of negligible collisions is an explicit modeling choice whose validity is a separate question from circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model relies on external optical constants and condensation curves taken from prior work; no new free parameters are introduced in the abstract, but the energy-balance solution implicitly depends on assumed particle size, emissivity, and stellar spectrum shape.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Particle temperature is determined solely by radiative equilibrium (stellar heating = IR cooling) with negligible gas-particle heat exchange at low pressure.
    Stated in the abstract as the reason conventional thermochemical models fail.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5877 in / 1333 out tokens · 15614 ms · 2026-06-26T12:57:00.051031+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Adams, D., Gao, P., de Pater, I., & Morley, C. V . 2019, ApJ, 874, 61

    2019

  2. [2]

    J., Wittenmyer, R

    Addison, B., Wright, D. J., Wittenmyer, R. A., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 115003

    2019

  3. [3]

    R., Hellier, C., Gillon, M., et al

    Anderson, D. R., Hellier, C., Gillon, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 159

    2010

  4. [4]

    E., Rooney, C

    Batalha, N. E., Rooney, C. M., Visscher, C., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 98

    2026

  5. [5]

    A., Lothringer, J., et al

    Benneke, B., Knutson, H. A., Lothringer, J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 813

    2019

  6. [6]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1300

    Bertrand, T., Lellouch, E., Holler, B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1300

    2025

  7. [7]

    S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A107

    2017

  8. [8]

    Brande, J., Crossfield, I. J. M., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L23

    2024

  9. [9]

    & Sharp, C

    Burrows, A. & Sharp, C. M. 1999, ApJ, 512, 843

    1999

  10. [10]

    2015, ApJL, 813, L1

    Charnay, B., Meadows, V ., Misra, A., Leconte, J., & Arney, G. 2015, ApJL, 813, L1

    2015

  11. [11]

    A., Mayne, N

    Christie, D. A., Mayne, N. J., Gillard, R. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1407

    2022

  12. [12]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 512

    Coulombe, L.-P., Radica, M., Benneke, B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 512

    2025

  13. [13]

    Crossfield, I. J. M. & Kreidberg, L. 2017, AJ, 154, 261

    2017

  14. [14]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  15. [15]

    H., Yu, X., Ohno, K., et al

    Dymont, A. H., Yu, X., Ohno, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 90 18

    2022

  16. [16]

    E., Kirk, J., et al

    Espinoza, N., Steinrueck, M. E., Kirk, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 1017

    2024

  17. [17]

    D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al

    Feinstein, A. D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 670

    2023

  18. [18]

    1975, Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 37, 1327

    Fiocco, G., Grams, G., & Visconti, G. 1975, Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 37, 1327

    1975

  19. [19]

    1976, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 33, 2415

    Fiocco, G., Mugnai, A., & Grams, G. 1976, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 33, 2415

    1976

  20. [20]

    2017, ApJL, 847, L22

    Fu, G., Deming, D., Knutson, H., et al. 2017, ApJL, 847, L22

    2017

  21. [21]

    B., Sing, D

    Fu, G., Stevenson, K. B., Sing, D. K., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.02081

    arXiv

  22. [22]

    & Benneke, B

    Gao, P. & Benneke, B. 2018, ApJ, 863, 165

    2018

  23. [23]

    Gao, P., Piette, A. A. A., Steinrueck, M. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 96

    2023

  24. [24]

    P., Lee, E

    Gao, P., Thorngren, D. P., Lee, E. K. H., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 951

    2020

  25. [25]

    R., Moran, S

    Gao, P., Wakeford, H. R., Moran, S. E., & Parmentier, V . 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06655

    2021

  26. [26]

    2008, Geophys

    Goldenson, N., Desch, S., & Christensen, P. 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08813

    2008

  27. [27]

    A., Batalha, N

    Gordon, T. A., Batalha, N. M., Batalha, N. E., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 178

    2026

  28. [28]

    K., Wakeford, H

    Grant, D., Lewis, N. K., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L32

    2023

  29. [29]

    M., Kahre, M

    Haberle, R. M., Kahre, M. A., Bertrand, T., & Wolff, M. J. 2025, Icarus, 429, 116452

    2025

  30. [30]

    D., Johnson, A

    Hamill, C. D., Johnson, A. V ., & Gao, P. 2024, PSJ, 5, 186

    2024

  31. [31]

    D., Johnson, A

    Hamill, C. D., Johnson, A. V ., Lodge, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 176

    2025

  32. [32]

    2006, A&A, 451, L9

    Helling, C., Thi, W.-F., Woitke, P., & Fridlund, M. 2006, A&A, 451, L9

    2006

  33. [33]

    Heng, K., Hayek, W., Pont, F., & Sing, D. K. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 20

    2012

  34. [34]

    W., & Min, M

    Huang, H., Ormel, C. W., & Min, M. 2024, A&A, 691, A291

    2024

  35. [35]

    E., Lewis, N

    Inglis, J., Batalha, N. E., Lewis, N. K., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L41

    2024

  36. [36]

    Jones, A. P. 2022, A&A, 665, A21

    2022

  37. [37]

    A., Blecic, J., Ashtari, R., et al

    Kahle, K. A., Blecic, J., Ashtari, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A184

    2025

  38. [38]

    2014, A&A, 568, A42

    Kataoka, A., Okuzumi, S., Tanaka, H., & Nomura, H. 2014, A&A, 568, A42

    2014

  39. [39]

    & Ikoma, M

    Kawashima, Y . & Ikoma, M. 2018, ApJ, 853, 7

    2018

  40. [40]

    Kempton, E. M. R., Zhang, M., Bean, J. L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.06240

    arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    V ., & Rowland, M

    Kiefer, S., Morley, C. V ., & Rowland, M. J. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 98

    2026

  42. [42]

    & Heng, K

    Kitzmann, D. & Heng, K. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 94

    2018

  43. [43]

    A., Benneke, B., Deming, D., & Homeier, D

    Knutson, H. A., Benneke, B., Deming, D., & Homeier, D. 2014, Nature, 505, 66

    2014

  44. [44]

    2006, A&A, 449, 583

    Koike, C., Mutschke, H., Suto, H., et al. 2006, A&A, 449, 583

    2006

  45. [45]

    & Arfaux, A

    Lavvas, P. & Arfaux, A. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5643

    2021

  46. [46]

    Showman, A. P. 2019, ApJ, 878, 118

    2019

  47. [47]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09981

    Lavvas, P., Paraskevaidou, S., & Arfaux, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09981

    arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    2016, A&A, 594, A48

    Lee, E., Dobbs-Dixon, I., Helling, C., Bognar, K., & Woitke, P. 2016, A&A, 594, A48

    2016

  49. [49]

    Lee, E. K. H. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2918

    2023

  50. [50]

    Lee, E. K. H. & Ohno, K. 2025, A&A, 695, A111

    2025

  51. [51]

    Lee, E. K. H., Werlen, A., & Dorn, C. 2025, ApJL, 990, L43

    2025

  52. [52]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.09668

    Videen, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.09668

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    J., Boutle, I

    Lines, S., Mayne, N. J., Boutle, I. A., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A97

    2018

  54. [54]

    Marley, M. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.04186

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    G., Wakeford, H

    Lodge, M. G., Wakeford, H. R., & Leinhardt, Z. M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11113

    2024

  56. [56]

    R., Mullens, E., Alderson, L., et al

    Louie, D. R., Mullens, E., Alderson, L., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 86

    2025

  57. [57]

    S., Eastman, J

    Mahajan, A. S., Eastman, J. D., & Kirk, J. 2024, ApJL, 963, L37

    2024

  58. [58]

    2025, AJ, 169, 221

    Malsky, I., Rauscher, E., Stevenson, K., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 221

    2025

  59. [59]

    & Kempton, E

    Mbarek, R. & Kempton, E. M. R. 2016, ApJ, 827, 121

    2016

  60. [60]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.23406 Miller-Ricci Kempton, E., Zahnle, K., & Fortney, J

    Mehta, N., Parmentier, V ., Tan, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.23406 Miller-Ricci Kempton, E., Zahnle, K., & Fortney, J. J. 2012, ApJ, 745, 3

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 53

    Molaverdikhani, K., Henning, T., & Molli`ere, P. 2020, ApJ, 899, 53

    2020

  62. [62]

    E., Lodge, M

    Moran, S. E., Lodge, M. G., Batalha, N. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 116

    2025

  63. [63]

    E., Marley, M

    Moran, S. E., Marley, M. S., & Crossley, S. D. 2024, ApJL, 973, L3

    2024

  64. [64]

    V ., Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V ., Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 172

    2012

  65. [65]

    V ., Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V ., Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 110

    2015

  66. [66]

    M., Heng, K., & Kitzmann, D

    Morris, B. M., Heng, K., & Kitzmann, D. 2024, A&A, 685, A104

    2024

  67. [67]

    K., Fu, G., et al

    Mukherjee, S., Sing, D. K., Fu, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10910

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    M., Beatty, T

    Murphy, M. M., Beatty, T. G., Schlawin, E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1562

    2024

  69. [69]

    M., Beatty, T

    Murphy, M. M., Beatty, T. G., Schlawin, E., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 61

    2025

  70. [70]

    & Okuzumi, S

    Ohno, K. & Okuzumi, S. 2018, ApJ, 859, 34

    2018

  71. [71]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 131

    Ohno, K., Okuzumi, S., & Tazaki, R. 2020, ApJ, 891, 131

    2020

  72. [72]

    J., et al

    Ohno, K., Schlawin, E., Bell, T. J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L7 19

    2025

  73. [73]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 3420

    Oreshenko, M., Heng, K., & Demory, B.-O. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3420

    2016

  74. [74]

    Ormel, C. W. & Min, M. 2019, A&A, 622, A121

    2019

  75. [75]

    A., Henry, T

    Paredes, L. A., Henry, T. J., Quinn, S. N., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 176

    2021

  76. [76]

    Marley, M. S. 2016, ApJ, 828, 22

    2016

  77. [77]

    & Zhang, X

    Powell, D. & Zhang, X. 2024, ApJ, 969, 5

    2024

  78. [78]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 18

    Powell, D., Zhang, X., Gao, P., & Parmentier, V . 2018, ApJ, 860, 18

    2018

  79. [79]

    2026, miepython: A Python library for Mie scattering calculations

    Prahl, S. 2026, miepython: A Python library for Mie scattering calculations

    2026

  80. [80]

    & Rauscher, E

    Roman, M. & Rauscher, E. 2019, ApJ, 872, 1

    2019

Showing first 80 references.