Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

The JWST Weather Report from the Isolated Exoplanet Analog SIMP 0136+0933: Pressure-Dependent Variability Driven by Multiple Mechanisms

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read JWST time-resolved spectroscopy shows that SIMP 0136+0933's infrared variability comes from at least three distinct atmospheric mechanisms at different pressures.

desk verdict The first JWST time-resolved spectra of an isolated planetary-mass object show genuinely complex wavelength-dependent variability, but the three-mechanism attribution is more speculative than the abstract admits. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16577 v1 pith:RHBXCH7Z submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Allison M. McCarthy , Johanna M. Vos , Philip S. Muirhead , Beth A. Biller , Caroline V. Morley , Jacqueline Faherty , Ben Burningham , Emily Calamari
show 12 more authors
Nicolas B. Cowan Kelle L. Cruz Eileen Gonzales Mary Anne Limbach Pengyu Liu Evert Nasedkin Genaro Suarez Xianyu Tan Cian O'Toole Channon Visscher Niall Whiteford Yifan Zhou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords browndwarfsTexoplanetatmospheresatmosphericvariabilitystructureJWSTplanetary-massobjectslightcurves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

JWST monitored the isolated planetary-mass object SIMP 0136+0933 across nearly one full 2.4-hour rotation, capturing time-resolved low-resolution spectra from 0.8 to 11 microns. The paper argues that the object's infrared flickering cannot be attributed to any single atmospheric mechanism: the light curves sort into ten distinct shapes (nine in the near-infrared, two in the mid-infrared) that map onto different pressure levels. At depth, patchy forsterite and iron clouds shape the bluest wavelengths; higher up, a persistent hot spot drives variability near 2.6 and 3.2 microns and out to 8.5 microns; and in between, changing carbon chemistry (CO, CH4, CO2) modulates the flux. If this picture holds, isolated planetary-mass objects exhibit the same kind of vertical layering of weather phenomena seen on Jupiter and Saturn, and JWST's simultaneous wide wavelength coverage is what makes the mechanisms separable.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by three linked tools. The first is the JWST dataset itself: NIRSpec/PRISM and MIRI/LRS time-series spectroscopy that produces variability maps—normalized flux as a function of wavelength and time—for 0.6–5.3 µm and 5–14 µm. The second is K-means clustering of the celerite2-modeled light curves, which groups wavelengths by shape and yields nine NIRSpec clusters and two MIRI clusters, with cosine-similarity and Pearson-correlation checks. The third is the interpretive mapping: each cluster is assigned a pressure from the clear-atmosphere contribution function of Sonora Diamondback models at $T_{\mathrm{eff}}=1100$ K and $\log g=4.5$, and the clusters are matched to mechanisms via the hot-spot and cloud flux-ratio spectra of Morley et al. (2014), the retrieved cloud pressures of Vos et al. (2023), and molecular band labels for $\mathrm{CO}$, $\mathrm{CO_2}$, $\mathrm{CH_4}$, and $\mathrm{H_2O}$. The load-bearing step is the assertion that light curves with the same shape share the same physical mechanism at a common pressure.

What would settle it

A retrieval that fits the full time-resolved spectra with cloud scattering and a temperature inversion included, and that reproduces the observed light-curve shapes using a single inhomogeneous mechanism, would disprove the claim that multiple mechanisms (clouds, hot spot, changing carbon chemistry) are required.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports the first JWST spectroscopic variability study of an isolated planetary-mass object. It finds that SIMP 0136+0933 is variable at every wavelength from 0.8 to 11 microns, with maximum deviations reaching 2.6% at 2.6 microns. Grouping the light curves by shape with K-means clustering yields nine NIRSpec clusters and two MIRI clusters; overlaying these on a clear-atmosphere contribution function at $T_{\mathrm{eff}}=1100$ K and $\log g=4.5$ places the clusters at distinct pressures. Combining this pressure map with published cloud retrievals and hot-spot model spectra, the authors conclude that no single mechanism produces the observed variations: patchy forsterite and iron clouds explain the clusters shortward of ~2.2 microns, a high-altitude hot spot (possibly aurorally driven) dominates ~2.2–3.7 and 5.5–8.5 microns, and changing abundances of CH$_{4}$, CO, and CO$_{2}$ differentiate the intermediate clusters. The authors emphasize that distinct light-curve shapes reflect different mechanisms at different depths rather than a simple phase shift between bands.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation assumes that light curves with the same shape are caused by the same physical mechanism, and that each wavelength probes the deepest layer given by a clear-atmosphere contribution function—with clouds only making the probed layer shallower—so a significant cloud-scattering or thermal-inversion effect on the contribution function would collapse the cluster-to-mechanism assignment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-band or broadband photometric monitoring cannot uniquely identify a variability driver; apparent phase shifts between bands may be the superposition of independent mechanisms at different pressures.
  • The cluster counts and pressure assignments become a diagnostic for atmospheric vertical structure: objects with similar effective temperatures can have different cluster numbers (SIMP has 9 NIRSpec clusters versus 3 for WISE1049AB), reflecting different cloud and chemistry configurations.
  • The hot-spot interpretation implies energy deposition near 0.1 bar on this object, and couples the carbon chemistry to the temperature structure, so future models must couple thermal and chemical perturbations rather than treat clouds alone.
  • Longer JWST observations spanning multiple rotations are needed to test whether the clusters and their pressure assignments are stable, or evolve as the object's weather changes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If pressure-dependent multi-mechanism variability is common among L/T-transition objects, the traditional reading of broadband phase shifts as one rotating spot should be re-examined; archival Spitzer/HST light curves of other brown dwarfs could be re-clustered the same way to look for multi-layer signals.
  • The clear-atmosphere contribution-function assumption is the paper's most vulnerable premise; a focused modeling study with cloudy contribution functions could show whether the cluster-pressure mapping shifts enough to blur the three mechanisms into one.
  • The unexplained 4.6 µm secondary peak is a concrete target: if it reflects CO/CO$_2$ disequilibrium chemistry tied to the hot spot, phase-resolved spectroscopy at higher spectral resolution should show those band depths oscillating in phase with the 2.6–3.7 µm hot-spot signal.
  • The Jupiter/Saturn analogy suggests a testable pattern: if the same three-layer architecture (deep clouds, hot spot, chemical-abundance variations) appears in a small sample of T/Y dwarfs observed with JWST, then this vertical stacking is a generic substellar phenomenon rather than a quirk of SIMP 0136+0933.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents ~3 h of JWST/NIRSpec BOTS prism spectroscopy (0.6–5.3 µm) followed by ~3 h of MIRI/LRS spectroscopy (5–14 µm) of the isolated planetary-mass object SIMP 0136+0933, covering just over one 2.4 h rotation. The authors report variability at every wavelength, with wavelength-dependent light-curve shapes, and they model the light curves with celerite2 Gaussian processes. They use K-means clustering to identify 9 NIRSpec and 2 MIRI clusters of similar light-curve shapes, overlay the clusters on clear-atmosphere Sonora Diamondback contribution functions to assign probed pressures, and compare the wavelength-dependent maximum deviations with hot-spot and patchy-cloud flux-ratio predictions from Morley et al. (2014). They conclude that patchy clouds, a high-altitude hot spot, and changing carbon chemistry are all present, and that no single mechanism can explain the observed variability.

Significance. The observations themselves are a major step: this is the first JWST spectroscopic variability study of an isolated planetary-mass object, the wavelength coverage from 0.8 to 11 µm is exceptional, the data are public via MAST, and the reduction is described with specific pipeline versions and context files. The raw result that every wavelength is variable and that light-curve shapes change systematically with wavelength is well supported and important. If the mechanistic interpretation survives scrutiny, the paper would be a benchmark for brown-dwarf and exoplanet atmosphere variability studies. However, the specific attribution to three independent mechanisms rests on assumptions about contribution functions and the interpretation of clusters that are not yet tested; the significance is therefore real but the central claim needs additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Figures 5 and 6] The load-bearing assumption of the pressure assignment is stated in §4.3: 'The addition of inhomogeneous features would alter this function only to reveal shallower depths, not deeper.' This is not generally true. Cloud holes, hot spots, or temperature perturbations can make the emergent flux originate from deeper, warmer layers, as in Jovian 5-µm hot spots. Because this directional assumption is what places NIRSpec clusters 1–6 above the forsterite and iron cloud decks, and hence forces the paper to invoke a high-altitude hot spot and changing carbon chemistry, the central 'no single mechanism' claim is not established by the cluster/pressure argument. The manuscript acknowledges degeneracies but does not test the single-mechanism null hypothesis, for example a rotating patchy-cloud field with holes, against the full set of wavelength-dependent light curves. A forward model of a single mechanism that predicts light-curve shapes and amplitudes across all wavelengths, or a systematic test with synthetic light curves, is needed before the three-mechanism conclusion is secure.
  2. [§4.4] The paper treats 'changing carbon chemistry' as a third mechanism, but the text in §4.4 states that 'Any disequilibrium species in the upper atmosphere would also vary in-phase with the hot spot because the added energy from the hot spot could facilitate chemical interactions.' That makes carbon-chemistry variations a consequence of the hot-spot mechanism rather than an independent mechanism. The secondary amplitude peak near 4.6 µm is aligned with CO2 and CO bands, but no modeling is presented that demonstrates an independent chemical variability signal beyond the hot-spot heating. Either the authors should model the coupled hot-spot/chemistry system or soften the conclusion to two mechanisms plus a chemically coupled response.
  3. [§4.2–4.3] The K-means clustering interpretation assumes that similar light-curve shapes imply a shared physical mechanism and that distinct shapes imply distinct mechanisms. This assumption is not tested. A single mechanism such as patchy clouds with wavelength-dependent opacity can produce different light-curve shapes at different wavelengths, while different mechanisms can produce similar shapes. Since the clustering is used to assign wavelengths mechanistically, a synthetic test—for example, generating light curves from a simple cloud-field model and showing that they would not cluster into the observed pattern—would materially strengthen the inference.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 5 and 6 captions] The caption says 'the gray vertical lines in panel (a) of both Figures 5 and 6 mark the 2.4 h rotation period,' but in Figure 5 the line is at 1 h and in Figure 6 the lines are at 3.4 and 5.8 h. The caption should match the text.
  2. [Section 2 and title] There are typographical errors: 'NIRSPec' should be 'NIRSpec', 'W ATA' should be 'WATA', and the title contains 'V ariability' instead of 'Variability'.
  3. [§4.4 and Figure 7] The maximum flux deviation is defined in §4.4 as the difference between maximum and minimum normalized flux values of the celerite maximum-likelihood fits, but Figure 7's caption calls it the 'measured maximum deviation' from the light curves. Please clarify whether the plotted quantity is from the data or from the GP fits.
  4. [References] Robinson & Marley 2014a and 2014b appear to be cited with identical bibliographic information; please verify whether these are distinct papers or one paper cited twice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected: the multi-mechanism conclusion is an interpretation of new JWST light curves against independent published models, not a fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central claim that no single mechanism explains the time-resolved spectra is not obtained by fitting a model to the data and then re-predicting the fit. The light curves are grouped descriptively with K-means clustering, and the cluster-to-pressure mapping uses the Sonora Diamondback clear-atmosphere contribution function plus the prior retrieval of Vos et al. (2023), both of which are external to the JWST light curves and not tuned to them. The hot-spot and cloud spectral predictions come from the published grid of Morley et al. (2014); the paper explicitly states that it does not carry out a full spectral modeling analysis and only highlights similarities between observations and predictions. The assumption that inhomogeneous features only reveal shallower depths is physically load-bearing and could be wrong, but it is a scientific caveat rather than a circular reduction: the paper does not define 'mechanism' as 'cluster,' and it acknowledges degeneracies in Section 4.3 ('we cannot rule out degeneracies in the combination of multiple mechanisms'). Self-citations to Vos et al. (2023), Morley et al. (2014), and McCarthy et al. (2024) are independent prior work and do not assume the conclusions of this paper. The weak points of the paper are therefore interpretive assumptions and acknowledged degeneracies, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard observational analysis tools (Gaussian process fitting, K-means clustering) and on several domain assumptions about how wavelength maps to pressure and how light curve shape maps to physical mechanism. No new free physical parameters are introduced: the GP hyperparameters and cluster counts are data-derived analysis choices rather than physical constants. The main burden is the clear-atmosphere contribution function assumption in a cloudy atmosphere.

free parameters (2)
  • GP hyperparameters (two SHOTerm kernels plus jitter) = fitted per light curve via MCMC
    Used to smooth light curves and compute maximum deviations; not directly part of the central physical claim, but fitted to the data.
  • Number of K-means clusters = 9 (NIRSpec), 2 (MIRI)
    Selected via KneeLocator elbow method; not physically fitted, but the choice affects cluster interpretation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rotation period of SIMP 0136+0933 is 2.4 h (Artigau et al. 2009; Yang et al. 2016), used as the fixed period in the GP kernels.
    Invoked in Section 4.1. If the rotation period were inaccurate, the light curve phasing and the interpretation of features repeating at 2.4 h intervals would be compromised.
  • domain assumption Light curves with similar shapes are produced by the same physical mechanism(s), so clustering them groups shared mechanisms.
    This is the foundation of the K-means clustering interpretation in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. Distinct shapes could in principle arise from a single mechanism viewed at different wavelengths, which would break the cluster-to-mechanism mapping.
  • domain assumption A clear-atmosphere contribution function at Teff=1100 K and log g=4.5 gives the deepest pressure probed by each wavelength; clouds only make the probed layer shallower, not deeper.
    Stated explicitly in Section 4.3 and used to assign clusters to pressure levels in Figures 5 and 6. A temperature inversion or scattering cloud layer could invalidate this monotonic mapping.
  • domain assumption The non-interruptible NIRSpec then MIRI sequence samples the same atmospheric state, with no significant evolution between the two visits.
    Assumed in Section 2 and checked only in the 4.5 to 5.1 um overlap region. If the atmosphere evolved between visits, combining the two light curves into one full-rotation picture would be misleading.
  • domain assumption The Morley et al. (2014) hot spot and cloud model spectra and the Sonora Diamondback models are accurate enough for qualitative comparison.
    Used in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 to attribute observed amplitude patterns to a hot spot and clouds. The attribution is qualitative, and the paper does not fit these models to the data, so inaccuracies in the models directly affect the mechanism assignment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The JWST Weather Report from the Isolated Exoplanet Analog SIMP 0136+0933: Pressure-Dependent Variability Driven by Multiple Mechanisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHBXCH7Z

@misc{pith2026241116577,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The JWST Weather Report from the Isolated Exoplanet Analog SIMP 0136+0933: Pressure-Dependent Variability Driven by Multiple Mechanisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHBXCH7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16577}
}
read the original abstract

Isolated planetary-mass objects share their mass range with planets but do not orbit a star. They lack the necessary mass to support fusion in their cores and thermally radiate their heat from formation as they cool, primarily at infrared wavelengths. Many isolated planetary-mass objects show variations in their infrared brightness consistent with non-uniform atmospheric features modulated by their rotation. SIMP J013656.5+093347.3 is a rapidly rotating isolated planetary-mass object, and previous infrared monitoring suggests complex atmospheric features rotating in and out of view. The physical nature of these features is not well understood, with clouds, temperature variations, thermochemical instabilities, and infrared-emitting aurora all proposed as contributing mechanisms. Here we report JWST time-resolved low-resolution spectroscopy from 0.8 - 11 micron of SIMP J013656.5+093347.3 which supports the presence of three specific features in the atmosphere: clouds, hot spots, and changing carbon chemistry. We show that no single mechanism can explain the variations in the time-resolved spectra. When combined with previous studies of this object indicating patchy clouds and aurorae, these measurements reveal the rich complexity of the atmosphere of SIMP J013656.5+093347.3. Gas giant planets in the solar system, specifically Jupiter and Saturn, also have multiple cloud layers and high-altitude hot spots, suggesting these phenomena are also present in worlds both within and beyond our solar-system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. JWST-TST DREAMS: NIRSpec/PRISM Transmission Spectroscopy of the Habitable Zone Planet TRAPPIST-1 e

    astro-ph.EP 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Using four JWST/NIRSpec PRISM transits and a new Gaussian Process retrieval that marginalizes over stellar contamination, the authors rule out cloudy, H2-dominated (≳80% by volume) primary atmospheres on TRAPPIST-1 e at >3σ.

  2. A clear detection of proper motion confirms that the claimed $\mathbf{z\simeq32}$ galaxy candidate, "Capotauro'', is a Y-type brown dwarf

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Capotauro, previously a candidate galaxy at z about 32, is confirmed as a Y-type brown dwarf near 730 pc by a 6.2 sigma proper motion measured over 3.5 years.

  3. The ESO SupJup Survey V: Exploring Atmospheric Variability and Orbit of the Super-Jupiter AB Pictoris b with CRIRES+

    astro-ph.EP 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Four nights of CRIRES+ spectra of AB Pictoris b give a solar C/O ratio (0.59±0.01), a 12C/13C ratio of 102±8, and a low rotation of 3.7 km/s, with tentative nightly variability.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B., Mansfield, M., et al

    Ahrer, E.-M., Stevenson, K. B., Mansfield, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 653, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4 2023

  2. [2]

    R., Alam, M

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3 2023

  3. [3]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/121 Artigau, ´E., Bouchard, S., Doyon, R., & Lafreni` ere, D

    Apai, D., Radigan, J., Buenzli, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/121 Artigau, ´E., Bouchard, S., Doyon, R., & Lafreni` ere, D. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1534, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1534 Artigau, ´E., Doyon, R., Lafreni` ere, D., et al. 2006, ApJL, 651, L57, doi: 10.1086/509146 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L....

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/121 2013

  4. [4]

    A., Mukherjee, S., Cushing, M

    Beiler, S. A., Mukherjee, S., Cushing, M. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6759

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6759 2024

  5. [5]

    A., Crossfield, I

    Biller, B. A., Crossfield, I. J. M., Mancini, L., et al. 2013, ApJL, 778, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L10

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/l10 2013

  6. [6]

    A., Vos, J

    Biller, B. A., Vos, J. M., Zhou, Y., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1602

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1602 2024

  7. [7]

    V., et al

    Buenzli, E., Apai, D., Morley, C. V., et al. 2012, ApJL, 760, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/2/L31

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/760/2/l31 2012

  8. [8]

    S., Lichtman, J., et al

    Croll, B., Muirhead, P. S., Lichtman, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1609.03587. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.03587

    arXiv 2016

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    K., Riedel, A

    Faherty, J. K., Riedel, A. R., Cruz, K. L., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 10, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/10

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    K., Burningham, B., Gagn´ e, J., et al

    Faherty, J. K., Burningham, B., Gagn´ e, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 511, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07190-w

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S., & Angus, R. 2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013a, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 —. 2013b, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi

  6. [14]

    J., Visscher, C., Marley, M

    Fortney, J. J., Visscher, C., Marley, M. S., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 288, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc5bd Gagn´ e, J., Faherty, J. K., Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2017, ApJL, 841, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa70e2

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Cotter, G., et al

    Hallinan, G., Littlefair, S. P., Cotter, G., et al. 2015, Nature, 523, 568, doi: 10.1038/nature14619

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Hallinan, G., Pineda, J

    Kao, M. M., Hallinan, G., Pineda, J. S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 24, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/24

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac2d5 K¨ uhnle, H., Patapis, P., Molli` ere, P., et al

    Burgasser, A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac2d5 K¨ uhnle, H., Patapis, P., Molli` ere, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10933, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10933

    2018 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Lee, E. K. H., Tan, X., & Tsai, S.-M. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1715 —. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae537

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Lew, B. W. P., Apai, D., Zhou, Y., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5f59

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Vos, J

    Liu, P., Biller, B. A., Vos, J. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3502

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    L., & Morley, C

    Luna, J. L., & Morley, C. V. 2021, ApJ, 920, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1865

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Muirhead, P

    McCarthy, A. M., Muirhead, P. S., Tamburo, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c76

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Heinze, A., Apai, D., et al

    Metchev, S. A., Heinze, A., Apai, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/154

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    V., Marley, M

    Morley, C. V., Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J., & Lupu, R. 2014, ApJL, 789, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L14

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    V., Mukherjee, S., Marley, M

    Morley, C. V., Mukherjee, S., Marley, M. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.00758, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.00758

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    K., Wang, J., Artigau, ´E., Doyon, R., & Su´ arez, G

    Plummer, M. K., Wang, J., Artigau, ´E., Doyon, R., & Su´ arez, G. 2024, ApJ, 970, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4f89

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    2014, ApJ, 797, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/120

    Radigan, J. 2014, ApJ, 797, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/120

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    E., & Williams, C

    Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. I. 2006, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (The MIT Press)

    2006

  22. [30]

    D., & Marley, M

    Robinson, T. D., & Marley, M. S. 2014a, ApJ, 785, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/158 —. 2014b, ApJ, 785, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/158

    doi

  23. [31]

    2022, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical

    Rustamkulov, Z., & Transiting Exoplanet Community ERS Team. 2022, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical

    2022

  24. [32]

    2011, in 2011 31st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 166–171, doi: 10.1109/ICDCSW.2011.20

    Satopaa, V., Albrecht, J., Irwin, D., & Raghavan, B. 2011, in 2011 31st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 166–171, doi: 10.1109/ICDCSW.2011.20

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    K., Evans-Soma, T

    Sing, D. K., Evans-Soma, T. M., Rustamkulov, Z., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7fe7 Su´ arez, G., & Metchev, S. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1205

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Tan, X., & Showman, A. P. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 678, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab060

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Chabrier, G., et al

    Tremblin, P., Amundsen, D. S., Chabrier, G., et al. 2016, ApJL, 817, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/817/2/L19

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    W., Emery, A., et al

    Tremblin, P., Phillips, M. W., Emery, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038771 14

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Faherty, J

    Vos, J. M., Faherty, J. K., Gagn´ e, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4502

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Burningham, B., Faherty, J

    Vos, J. M., Burningham, B., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab58

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol

    Welbanks, L., Line, M., Carter, A., et al. 2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol. 56, AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, 201.02

    2024

  33. [41]

    S., et al

    Yang, H., Apai, D., Marley, M. S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 8, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/8

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Zhang, X., & Showman, A. P. 2014, ApJL, 788, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/1/L6

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.