Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 3 cited by

Time Resolved Absorption of Six Chemical Species With MAROON-X Points to Strong Drag in the Ultra Hot Jupiter TOI-1518 b

T0 review · 2 major / 7 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 The paper reports that time-resolved absorption trails of six chemical species in the ultra-hot Jupiter TOI-1518 b require strong atmospheric drag, with a drag timescale of roughly 10^3 to 10^4 seconds, and that the larger drag needed for…

desk verdict A careful, useful paper that likely gets the qualitative strong-drag direction right, but the quantitative drag timescale and the Fe+/Fe magnetic interpretation are softer than the abstract implies, and the authors know it. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01472 v4 pith:BZH3YABN submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.EP

A. Simonnin , V. Parmentier , J.P. Wardenier , G. Chauvin , A. Chiavassa , M. N'Diaye , X. Tan , N.Heidari
show 22 more authors
B.Prinoth J. Bean G.Hébrard M. Line D. Kitzmann D. Kasper S. Pelletier J.V. Seidel A. Seifhart B. Benneke X.Bonfils M. Brogi J-M. Désert S. Gandhi M. Hammond E.K.H. Lee C.Moutou P. Palma-Bifani L. Pino E. Rauscher M. Weiner Mansfield J.Serrano Bell P. Smith
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords ultra-hotJupiteratmosphericdynamicscross-correlationspectroscopygeneralcirculationmodelsmagneticdragescapetransmissionTOI-1518b
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

This paper tries to establish how fast winds move in the ultra-hot Jupiter TOI-1518 b and why they move that way. Using two transits of high-resolution optical spectra, it detects 14 species and tracks the time-varying absorption trail of six of them: Fe, Fe+, Ca, Ca+, Na, and Mg. Comparing those trails with general circulation model predictions, it concludes that a strong drag is slowing the winds, with a drag timescale of about $10^{3}$ to $10^{4}$ seconds. The species-dependent trails, with Fe+ needing stronger drag than Fe, are read as evidence that magnetic (ohmic) drag acts more strongly on the hotter dayside, while Ca+ appears to probe gas above the Roche lobe, likely outflowing material. The paper also uses a radial-velocity mass measurement to anchor a retrieval analysis that finds a roughly solar iron abundance.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the time-resolved cross-correlation trail: for each of six species, the line-center position measured from a Gaussian fit to the cross-correlation function in each of nine transit phase bins is plotted against orbital phase. The comparison is made with the same trails extracted from general circulation models in which all unresolved dissipation, including turbulent mixing, shocks, and magnetic drag, is parameterized by a single Newtonian drag timescale spanning $10^{3}$ to $10^{6}$ seconds. The species-dependence of the trails carries the argument: Fe+ and Fe probe different thermal regions, and Ca+ probes much higher altitudes, so the differences among the six trails separate the drag signal from geometry and rotation.

What would settle it

Fit each binned cross-correlation function with a two-Gaussian model that lets the morning and evening limb signals have independent positions and widths, then recompute the six trails. If the Fe and Fe+ trails both match the tau_drag = $10^{4}$ second model within the quoted errors, the claimed preference for $10^{3}$-second drag in Fe+ and the magnetic-drag interpretation would not survive; if the double-Gaussian fits change the phase-dependent positions by more than the quoted uncertainties, the inferred drag timescale itself would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that TOI-1518 b's atmosphere is strongly braked: the measured phase-dependent Doppler shifts of six species fall between the predictions of general circulation models with drag timescales of $10^{3}$ and $10^{4}$ seconds, and the amplitude and width of the Fe signal favor $10^{4}$ seconds, while the Fe+ signal favors the stronger $10^{3}$-second drag. The paper interprets the Fe+/Fe difference as a sign of magnetic drag, since ionized iron forms preferentially on the hotter dayside, where ohmic dissipation is expected to be strongest. It further claims that Ca+ traces layers up to $10^{-8}$ bar, corresponding to an effective radius of 1.97 ± 0.04 R_p, essentially the Roche lobe radius, so its qualitatively different trail reflects outflow rather than the day-to-night circulation that shapes the other species. The detection of 14 species includes VO only with the newer HyVO line list, and the refined planetary mass of 1.83 ± 0.47 M_Jup from radial-velocity data anchors the Kp-Vres and retrieval analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The inferred drag timescale assumes that each species' cross-correlation trail is faithfully summarized by a single Gaussian fit, even though the model trails are double-peaked and the observed one-dimensional profiles deviate from Gaussian shapes; a phase-dependent bias in those fits would move the inferred drag toward weaker or stronger values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the strong-drag conclusion is correct, the equatorial jet is suppressed and the day-to-night flow dominates, so TOI-1518 b's circulation is much more symmetric than drag-free models predict.
  • The Fe+/Fe difference, interpreted as magnetic drag, implies that ionized species in ultra-hot Jupiters can serve as diagnostics of the altitude- and temperature-dependent dissipation that neutral species cannot reach.
  • Because Ca+ appears to probe gas above the Roche lobe, its lines can be used as a transmission-spectroscopy probe of atmospheric escape and outflow geometry in similar planets.
  • The roughly solar iron abundance, measured with a mass refined by radial velocities, supports the picture that refractory elements remain gaseous in ultra-hot Jupiters and can trace the host star's metallicity.
  • The demonstrated Kp/Vres bias in multi-species retrievals implies that abundance estimates for species detected away from the dominant iron signal require per-species velocity offsets or single-species retrievals to be reliable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the single-Gaussian fits bias the phase-dependent trail positions, the inferred drag timescale could shift; a reanalysis that fits the model's double-peaked cross-correlation functions with two Gaussians, one per limb, would test whether the claimed 10^3 to 10^4 second range survives.
  • The magnetic-drag interpretation could be tested by measuring trails of other ion/neutral pairs, such as Ti+/Ti and Ca+/Ca, across a sample of ultra-hot Jupiters with different dayside temperatures and expected magnetic field strengths.
  • The grazing geometry of TOI-1518 b amplifies the leading/trailing limb asymmetry, so comparing its trails with a low-impact-parameter ultra-hot Jupiter could separate wind shifts from rotational and geometric contributions.
  • Since Ca+ seems to trace outflow above the Roche lobe, simultaneous observations of Ca+ with other escape tracers could constrain mass-loss rates and the geometry of the outflow in this and similar systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. TOI-1518 b is observed with MAROON-X during two transits (2022-08-13 and 2023-10-19). Cross-correlation with single-species synthetic templates yields detections of 14 species, and phase-binned CCF trails are measured for six species (Fe, Fe+, Ca, Ca+, Na, Mg), all of which show a progressive blueshift during transit. The trails are compared with five SPARC/MITgcm GCMs that differ only in the Newtonian drag timescale (τ_drag = ∞, 10^6, 10^5, 10^4, 10^3 s); model spectra are injected into the real data and processed with the same PCA plus Gaussian-fitting pipeline. The no-drag and 10^6 s models are much more blueshifted than the data, and the data lie between the 10^4 and 10^3 s models. Fe+ appears to require stronger drag than Fe, which the authors interpret as a sign of magnetic (ohmic) drag; Ca+ shows a qualitatively different trail, attributed to probing layers up to 10^-8 bar near or above the Roche lobe. A CHIMERA retrieval using the newly derived SOPHIE mass (1.83 ± 0.47 MJup) gives log10 Fe = −4.88(+0.63/−0.76), consistent with stellar metallicity, and demonstrates Kp/Vsys-induced biases for the other species. Ancillary results include the first significant RV detection (K = 192(+48/−49) m/s), a refined ephemeris from 56 TESS transits, and a VO detection with the HyVO line list that is not recovered with the VOmyt line list.

Significance. If the strong-drag conclusion holds, this paper is a significant addition to the emerging picture, alongside WASP-121 b (Wardenier et al. 2024), that ultra-hot Jupiter wind speeds are strongly suppressed by some dissipative process, and it is the first such phase-resolved study for a very grazing geometry (b ≈ 0.88–0.90) where the limb-probing interpretation is cleaner. The claimed Fe+/Fe differential drag is a potentially novel diagnostic of altitude- or temperature-dependent (magnetic) drag, and the Ca+ above-Roche interpretation is a testable hypothesis. The methodology has real strengths: the GCM spectra are injected into the actual data and analyzed with the same PCA and CCF pipeline as the observations, giving a symmetric data-model comparison; the σPCA term is propagated into the trail uncertainties; the retrieval biases for species with offset Kp/Vsys are demonstrated rather than ignored; and the SOPHIE mass, refined ephemeris, and HyVO line-list comparison are useful independent contributions.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.3, Figs. 10–13] The quantitative drag-timescale inference rests on single-Gaussian fits to CCFs that the manuscript itself shows to be double-peaked and non-Gaussian. Section 4.3 states that the GCM CCF "exhibits a double-peak structure with one centered near 0 km/s and another around −7 km/s" and that a single-peaked function "cannot accurately capture the asymmetric nature of the CCF," while Sect. 3.5 and Fig. B.5 report that centering the Gaussian on the CCF maximum caused "a misestimation of the FWHM and probably of the error bars of the measured Vres." For a two-peak profile, the fitted centroid, FWHM, and amplitude are set by the relative heights of the two peaks, which evolve with orbital phase and with τ_drag; the data/model separation between τ_drag = 10^3 and 10^4 s for Fe (Fig. 11) is drawn from exactly these statistics, including the FWHM argument that the 10^3 s signal is "too small and not wide enough." Applying the same estimator to data and models makes the comparison procedurally symmetric, but it does not establish that the derived τ_drag range applies to the underlying CCF shapes. A full forward-model comparison (two-Gaussian fits to both data and models, a direct likelihood comparison of the binned CCF profiles, or an injection-recovery calibration of the centroid and width bias) is needed to support the quoted τ_drag = 10^3–10^4 s range, particularly because the grid contains only five models and the range is inferred by interpolation between two adjacent grid points. The qualitative exclusion of the no-drag and 10^6 s models is not affected by this concern, since those trails are far more blueshifted than the data.
  2. [§4.3, Fig. 12, Fig. B.3] The Fe+/Fe differential-drag claim rests on a single fragile diagnostic. The paper states that for Fe+ the model amplitude is unaffected by drag and that the FWHM error bars are too large to differentiate between the two strong-drag models, leaving only the trail position to discriminate; position is precisely the summary statistic most vulnerable to the single-Gaussian bias described above. Additionally, the observed Fe+ trail is partially contaminated by a strong Fe+ line in the Mg triplet (Fig. B.3), while the model CCFs are computed for Fe+ alone, so the contamination can displace the data centroid relative to the models in a phase-dependent way. The ohmic-drag interpretation (Fe+ traces hotter dayside layers where magnetic drag is stronger, following Beltz et al. 2022) is plausible, but the abstract's statement that "Fe+ favors a stronger drag than Fe" is stronger than the current diagnostics support. The manuscript should either quantify the significance of the Fe+/Fe τ_drag difference including the Mg contamination and fit-systematic uncertainties, or present the interpretation as a hypothesis with a concrete test (e.g., an MHD GCM prediction of the differential Fe/Fe+ trail), and align the abstract and conclusions with that framing.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and spacing artifacts, e.g., "atmosheres" (Sect. 1), "the S/N was was always" (Sect. 2), "TO-1518b" (Appendix A), "FHWM" (Sect. 4.3), "Fe+ seem" (Sect. 6), and inconsistent spacing in "di fferent" and "W ASP" throughout; a careful language edit is needed.
  2. [Table 3] In the Ba+ row of Table 3, the amplitude uncertainty reads "11.4 ± -0.6"; the minus sign appears spurious and should be corrected.
  3. [§4.2] The injection and cross-correlation description in Sect. 4.2 mentions only the Fe template; please clarify that the model trails for Fe+, Ca, Ca+, Na, and Mg (Figs. 12–13) were produced with the corresponding species templates, since the species-dependent comparison is central to the argument.
  4. [§4.1, Table 4] The GCM gravity of 10.56 m/s² implies an assumed planetary mass of about 1.5 MJup, while the new SOPHIE mass is 1.83 ± 0.47 MJup; state the mass assumed by the GCMs explicitly and comment on the sensitivity of the modeled trails to the updated mass.
  5. [§4.3, Fig. 13] For the Ca+ trail, the data were analyzed without PCA (Sect. 3.5), but the injected model spectra were PCA-processed with three components following the iron procedure of Sect. 4.2; this asymmetry should be acknowledged, even though the qualitative Ca+ conclusion (model trails do not reproduce the observed red-starting trail) is unaffected.
  6. [§3.3, Table 3] The detections with S/N ≈ 4 (Mn, Cr) should be described as tentative given the S/N systematics discussed in Sect. 3.5 (PCA affects low-velocity residuals); the phase-resolved analysis is unaffected because all six trailed species have single-map S/N ≥ 7.9.
  7. [Abstract and §6] The abstract states categorically that "Fe+ favors a stronger drag than Fe," whereas the conclusions phrase this as "Fe+ seem to need more substantial drag"; align the abstract with the caveats given in Sect. 4.3, or strengthen the conclusions once the required analysis is done.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the strong-drag inference is a grid-model comparison to independent GCM spectra, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central claim that TOI-1518 b's atmosphere requires strong drag (tau_drag about 10^3 to 10^4 s) comes from comparing observed time-resolved CCF trails with phase-dependent transmission spectra computed from five SPARC/MITgcm models with fixed, pre-chosen drag timescales, using the same injection, PCA, and cross-correlation pipeline for both data and models. Selecting the grid model that best matches the data is standard model comparison, not a fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction. The GCM spectra, gCMCRT post-processing, and CHIMERA retrieval are published, independently described tools; self-citations to Wardenier et al. (2021, 2023, 2024), Lee et al. (2022), and Tan et al. (2024) are methodological references with their own computational content, not unverified premises that force the result. The magnetic interpretation of the Fe+/Fe drag contrast relies on the published model study of Beltz et al. (2022), which shares a co-author with the present paper, but the paper frames this as an 'indication' rather than a derivation, and the primary strong-drag conclusion does not reduce to it. The paper explicitly acknowledges that a single-Gaussian fit is limiting for the double-peaked model CCFs (Sect. 4.3, Fig. 10) and that the observed 1D CCFs deviate from Gaussian profiles (Fig. B.5); this is a robustness and uncertainty concern, not circularity. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the result it claims to predict, and no fitted parameter is presented as an independent prediction. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained apart from minor, non-load-bearing reliance on work by the same author group, which does not rise to construction-level circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are proposed. The central claim depends on the drag timescale parameter, the PCA and Gaussian-fit choices, and the domain assumptions that Newtonian drag parameterizes real dissipation and that the adopted line lists and equilibrium chemistry are reliable.

free parameters (4)
  • Drag timescale τ_drag = 10^3 to 10^4 s (grid: 10^3, 10^4, 10^5, 10^6, infinity)
    The GCM grid is compared to the observed trails; the paper concludes the data favor the two strongest drag cases. This is a parameter fit to the data rather than an independent prediction.
  • Number of PCA components removed = 3 (0 for Ca+)
    Chosen by hand to balance stellar/telluric removal against signal preservation; the paper adds σ_PCA in quadrature to trail errors because the choice affects the measured shifts.
  • Gaussian fit range for CCF bins = +/-10 km/s
    The fit window was chosen to produce better results than a broader range (Sect. 3.4); this choice affects inferred positions and widths.
  • Retrieval free parameters (T0, xRp, log Pc, Kp, Vsys, log a, log H-, log chi_i for 12 species) = Posteriors in Fig. D.1
    Standard CHIMERA free retrieval parameters; the iron abundance is the robust result, other species are flagged as biased due to Kp/Vsys offsets.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Newtonian drag parameterization in SPARC/MITgcm captures the net effect of all dissipation (magnetic, turbulent, shock)
    Invoked in Sect. 4.1 to map drag timescales to real physics; the magnetic-drag interpretation of Fe+/Fe is inferred from this parameterization, not from a self-consistent MHD model.
  • domain assumption Equilibrium chemistry with FastChem at 2500 K is representative for template generation and GCM opacities
    Used in Sect. 3.2 and GCM setup; if the atmosphere is chemically non-uniform, the templates and model abundances could bias cross-correlation and retrieval results.
  • domain assumption Line lists (Kurucz atoms/ions, HyVO, TOTO, VOmyt) are accurate
    The VO detection appears only with HyVO and at a -12 km/s blueshift; the paper acknowledges the shift could stem from line-list inaccuracies (Sect. 3.5).
  • standard math Standard radiative transfer and Bayesian retrieval codes (gCMCRT, CHIMERA, PetitRadtrans) produce unbiased model spectra
    These are established codes cited in the paper; the retrieval biases for off-Kp species suggest some of these assumptions fail for ions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time Resolved Absorption of Six Chemical Species With MAROON-X Points to Strong Drag in the Ultra Hot Jupiter TOI-1518 b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZH3YABN

@misc{pith2026241201472,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time Resolved Absorption of Six Chemical Species With MAROON-X Points to Strong Drag in the Ultra Hot Jupiter TOI-1518 b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZH3YABN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01472}
}
read the original abstract

Wind dynamics play a pivotal role in governing transport processes within planetary atmospheres, influencing atmospheric chemistry, cloud formation, and the overall energy budget. Understanding the strength and patterns of winds is crucial for comprehensive insights into the physics of ultra-hot Jupiter atmospheres. This study focuses on unraveling the wind dynamics and the chemical composition in the atmosphere of the ultra-hot Jupiter TOI-1518 b. Two transit observations using the high-resolution (R{\lambda} = 85 000), optical (spectral coverage between 490 and 920 nm) spectrograph MAROON-X were obtained and analyzed to explore the chemical composition and wind dynamics using the cross-correlation techniques, global circulating models, and atmospheric retrieval. We report the detection of 14 species in the atmosphere of TOI-1518 b through cross-correlation analysis. Additionally, we measure the time-varying cross-correlation trails for 6 different species, compare them with predictions from General Circulation Models (GCM) and conclude that a strong drag is present in TOI-1518b's atmosphere. We find that the trails are species-dependent. Fe+ favors a stronger drag than Fe, which we interpret as a sign of magnetic effects being responsible for the observed strong drag. Furthermore, we show that Ca+ probes layers above the Roche lobe, leading to a qualitatively different trail than the other species. Finally, we use a retrieval analysis to characterize the abundance of the different species detected. That analysis is refined thanks to the updated planetary mass we derived from the radial-velocity detection using SOPHIE data. We measure an abundance of iron corresponding to 0.07 to 1.62 solar enrichment. The retrievals appear to be biased for the other elements, probably due to the different Kp/Vsys shifts between iron and the other elements, which we demonstrate in the case of VO.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01472 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Airmass and S/N plot over orbital phases. The gray area represents the out-of-transit phases. Due to better observational conditions (humidity and airmass), S/N is higher for the second transit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Correction of the stellar and telluric signal. Top Panel: Raw data of two orders of MAROON-X red detector between 845 to 867 nm. Three strong stellar lines corresponding to Ca+ triplet are observed around 849, 854 and 866 nm. Bottom panel: Residuals obtained after correction with out-of-transit data. The dark signal here is the planetary Ca+ absorption lines, while the yellow signal is the Doppler shadow discussed i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Synthetic transmission spectra computed with PetitRadtrans and FastChem used as template for the cross-correlation anaysis. They are computed for TOI-1518 b parameters, assuming a temperature of 2500 K. The wavelength coverage of MAROON-X used in this study is repre￾sented with the blue (blue detector, 490-670 nm) and the red line (red detector, 640-920 nm). Ions and alkalines, have few very strong lines, while othe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: All Kp −Vres diagram for detected species in TOI-1518 b dataset. The white cross indicates the expected location of the planetary signal, which assumes a static atmosphere. Deviations from the white cross could be the significance of wind, circulations, or chemical asy…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cross-Correlation maps for iron in the planetary rest frame. The yellow dashed lines of the left panel represent the trace of the planetary signal at the expected Kp − Vres. The yellow dashed line of the right panel represents the position of the planetary signal if th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Position (left panel), Amplitude (central panel), and width (right panel) of the in-transit atmospheric CCFs Gaussian fit as a function of the orbital phase. The yellow dashed line of the left panel represents the expected position of the atmospheric track in the case …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper panel : CCFs map of TOI-1518 b for 6 different species. Lower panel: Position of the maximum Gaussian fit of the CCF maps of the upper panel. The yellow dashed line of the left panel represents the expected position of the atmospheric track in the case of a stati…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Kp − Vres map of VO in TOI-1518 b with two different line lists. Left panel: CCF made with HyVO line list (Bowesman et al. 2024). Right panel: Same but with VOmyt line list (McKemmish et al. 2016) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Overview of three out of the five GCM models of TOI-1518 b considered in this work. The model in the first column is the drag-free model, while second and last column consider respectively weak (τdrag = 106 s) and strong (τdrag = 103 s) drag effects. Each panel shows t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Importance of the impact parameter b with examples for b =0 on the top raw and b=0.9 on the lower raw. On the left, the CCF maps of the injected models within blue dashed lines, the Gaussian fit applied similarly to the data (Fig.6). On the right, the illuminated part…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as Fig.6 but with the results of the Gaussian fit for the different models from no drag effect to strong drag effect. In the central panel, the illuminated fraction of the planetary limb as a function of the orbital phase is represented in a yellow dashed line. t…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as Fig.11 but with the results of the Gaussian fit for the Fe+ compared to models. Fe Ca Na Fe+ Ca+ Mg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as lower panel of Fig.7 but with the results of the Gaussian fit for the stronger drag models included. Fig.13 shows the trails for the 6 species of Fig.7 with the signals of the stronger drag models. For Ca, Na, Mg, and Ca+ the signal straddles between both thes…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Histograms of the measured abundances of different elements in TOI-1518 b’s atmosphere. Proto-solar value of each element is represented in dashed lines (from Lodders 2019). than that of iron, and it is, for now, unclear whether this is due to a physical effect (e.g. …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Likelihood distributions for temperature, Kp, Vres and log10VO derived from the multi-species retrieval (in red) and from retrieval with only VO inside (in blue). By combining the signal from different species, particularly Fe+ and Fe, and comparing them with GCMs , w…

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. Assessing robustness and bias in 1D retrievals of 3D Global Circulation Models at high spectral resolution: a WASP-76 b simulation case study in emission

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A 1D retrieval on 3D GCM emission spectra of WASP-76 b does not recover a homogeneous average of the atmosphere; it is most sensitive to high thermal gradient regions that need not be the brightest.

  2. Atmospheric characterization of six ultra-hot Jupiters from $K$-band high-resolution spectroscopy

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Uniform K-band retrievals of six UHJs detect CO-dominated emission spectra with weak dissociated H2O/OH features and 1–10× solar abundances, but cannot tightly constrain C/O.

  3. From pre-transit to post-eclipse: investigating the impact of 3D temperature, chemistry, and dynamics on high-resolution emission spectra of the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-76b

    astro-ph.EP 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulated emission spectra of WASP-76b show planet rotation drives negative Kp offsets and weak nightside temperature gradients suppress CO and H2O absorption.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R., Temple , L

    Anderson , D. R., Temple , L. Y., Nielsen , L. D., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.04897

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Bell , T. J. & Cowan , N. B. 2018, , 857, L20

    2018

  3. [3]

    Beltz , H., Rauscher , E., Kempton , E. M. R., Malsky , I., & Savel , A. B. 2023, , 165, 257

    2023

  4. [4]

    T., & Guilliat , A

    Beltz , H., Rauscher , E., Roman , M. T., & Guilliat , A. 2022, , 163, 35

    2022

  5. [5]

    2021, , 645, A24

    Borsa , F., Allart , R., Casasayas-Barris , N., et al. 2021, , 645, A24

    2021

  6. [6]

    F., H \'e brard , G., et al

    Bouchy , F., D \' az , R. F., H \'e brard , G., et al. 2013, , 549, A49

    2013

  7. [7]

    2009, , 505, 853

    Bouchy , F., H \'e brard , G., Udry , S., et al. 2009, , 505, 853

    2009

  8. [8]

    A., Qu , Q., McKemmish , L

    Bowesman , C. A., Qu , Q., McKemmish , L. K., Yurchenko , S. N., & Tennyson , J. 2024, , 529, 1321

    work page 2024

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    R., et al

    Brogi , M., Emeka-Okafor , V., Line , M. R., et al. 2023, , 165, 91

    2023

  2. [10]

    & Line , M

    Brogi , M. & Line , M. R. 2019, , 157, 114

    2019

  3. [11]

    2014, , 564, A125

    Buchner , J., Georgakakis , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2014, , 564, A125

    2014

  4. [12]

    Cabot , S. H. C., Bello-Arufe , A., Mendon c a , J. M., et al. 2021, , 162, 218

    2021

  5. [13]

    A., Lothringer , J., & Blake , G

    Chachan , Y., Knutson , H. A., Lothringer , J., & Blake , G. A. 2023, , 943, 112

    2023

  6. [14]

    M., Noyes , R

    Charbonneau , D., Brown , T. M., Noyes , R. W., & Gilliland , R. L. 2002, , 568, 377

    2002

  7. [15]

    M., Zuckerman , B., et al

    Chauvin , G., Lagrange , A. M., Zuckerman , B., et al. 2005, , 438, L29

    2005

  8. [16]

    2021, , 651, A33

    Cont , D., Yan , F., Reiners , A., et al. 2021, , 651, A33

    2021

  9. [17]

    2023, , 620, 292

    Coulombe , L.-P., Benneke , B., Challener , R., et al. 2023, , 620, 292

    2023

  10. [18]

    2017, EXOFASTv2: Generalized publication-quality exoplanet modeling code , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1710.003

    Eastman , J. 2017, EXOFASTv2: Generalized publication-quality exoplanet modeling code , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1710.003

    2017

  11. [19]

    S., & Agol , E

    Eastman , J., Gaudi , B. S., & Agol , E. 2013, , 125, 83

    2013

  12. [20]

    D., Rodriguez , J

    Eastman , J. D., Rodriguez , J. E., Agol , E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09480

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    2020, , 580, 597

    Ehrenreich , D., Lovis , C., Allart , R., et al. 2020, , 580, 597

    2020

  14. [22]

    E., Kirk , J., et al

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

    2024

  15. [23]

    K., Wright , J

    Feng , Y. K., Wright , J. T., Nelson , B., et al. 2015, , 800, 22

    2015

  16. [24]

    P., & Bridges , M

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., & Bridges , M. 2009, , 398, 1601

    2009

  17. [25]

    J., Lodders , K., Marley , M

    Fortney , J. J., Lodders , K., Marley , M. S., & Freedman , R. S. 2008, , 678, 1419

    2008

  18. [26]

    J., Shabram , M., Showman , A

    Fortney , J. J., Shabram , M., Showman , A. P., et al. 2010, , 709, 1396

    2010

  19. [27]

    2016, , 591, A144

    Fromang , S., Leconte , J., & Heng , K. 2016, , 591, A144

    2016

  20. [28]

    Gray , D. F. 2022, The observation and analysis of stellar photospheres

    2022

  21. [29]

    Gu , P.-G., Lin , D. N. C., & Bodenheimer , P. H. 2003, , 588, 509

    2003

  22. [30]

    C., et al

    Heidari , N., Boisse , I., Hara , N. C., et al. 2024, , 681, A55

    2024

  23. [31]

    2025, , 694, A36

    Heidari , N., H \'e brard , G., Martioli , E., et al. 2025, , 694, A36

    2025

  24. [32]

    2012, , 761, L1

    Heng , K. 2012, , 761, L1

    2012

  25. [33]

    L., Line , M

    Kasper , D., Bean , J. L., Line , M. R., et al. 2023, , 165, 7

    2023

  26. [34]

    L., Line , M

    Kasper , D., Bean , J. L., Line , M. R., et al. 2021, , 921, L18

    2021

  27. [35]

    P., Lewis , N

    Kataria , T., Showman , A. P., Lewis , N. K., et al. 2013, , 767, 76

    2013

  28. [36]

    Y., Snellen , I

    Kesseli , A. Y., Snellen , I. A. G., Casasayas-Barris , N., Molli \`e re , P., & S \'a nchez-L \'o pez , A. 2022, , 163, 107

    2022

  29. [37]

    Komacek , T. D. & Showman , A. P. 2016, , 821, 16

    2016

  30. [38]

    Komacek , T. D. & Tan , X. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 36

    2018

  31. [39]

    R., Bean , J

    Kreidberg , L., Line , M. R., Bean , J. L., et al. 2015, , 814, 66

    2015

  32. [40]

    Kurucz , R. L. 2017, Canadian Journal of Physics, 95, 825

    2017

  33. [41]

    Lee , E. K. H., Wardenier , J. P., Prinoth , B., et al. 2022, , 929, 180

    2022

  34. [42]

    & Goodman , J

    Li , J. & Goodman , J. 2010, , 725, 1146

    2010

  35. [43]

    R., Brogi , M., Bean , J

    Line , M. R., Brogi , M., Bean , J. L., et al. 2021, , 598, 580

    2021

  36. [44]

    Line , M. R. & Parmentier , V. 2016, , 820, 78

    2016

  37. [45]

    R., Wolf , A

    Line , M. R., Wolf , A. S., Zhang , X., et al. 2013, , 775, 137

    2013

  38. [46]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.00844

    Lodders , K. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.00844

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    D., Barman , T., & Koskinen , T

    Lothringer , J. D., Barman , T., & Koskinen , T. 2018, , 866, 27

    2018

  40. [48]

    D., Rustamkulov , Z., Sing , D

    Lothringer , J. D., Rustamkulov , Z., Sing , D. K., et al. 2021, , 914, 12

    2021

  41. [49]

    2019, , 57, 617

    Madhusudhan , N. 2019, , 57, 617

    2019

  42. [50]

    Martins , J. H. C., Figueira , P., Santos , N. C., & Lovis , C. 2013, , 436, 1215

    2013

  43. [51]

    K., Masseron , T., Hoeijmakers , H

    McKemmish , L. K., Masseron , T., Hoeijmakers , H. J., et al. 2019, , 488, 2836

    2019

  44. [52]

    K., Yurchenko , S

    McKemmish , L. K., Yurchenko , S. N., & Tennyson , J. 2016, , 463, 771

    2016

  45. [53]

    P., van Boekel , R., et al

    Molli \`e re , P., Wardenier , J. P., van Boekel , R., et al. 2019, , 627, A67

    2019

  46. [54]

    2025, , 693, A213

    Nortmann , L., Lesjak , F., Yan , F., et al. 2025, , 693, A213

    2025

  47. [55]

    & Crossfield , I

    Parmentier , V. & Crossfield , I. J. M. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte , 116

    2018

  48. [56]

    R., Bean , J

    Parmentier , V., Line , M. R., Bean , J. L., et al. 2018, , 617, A110

    2018

  49. [57]

    2023, , 619, 491

    Pelletier , S., Benneke , B., Ali-Dib , M., et al. 2023, , 619, 491

    2023

  50. [58]

    2025, , 169, 10

    Pelletier , S., Benneke , B., Chachan , Y., et al. 2025, , 169, 10

    2025

  51. [59]

    2010, , 719, 1421

    Perna , R., Menou , K., & Rauscher , E. 2010, , 719, 1421

    2010

  52. [60]

    2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Perruchot , S., Kohler , D., Bouchy , F., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali , 70140J

    2008

  53. [61]

    J., Morris , B

    Prinoth , B., Hoeijmakers , H. J., Morris , B. M., et al. 2024, , 685, A60

    2024

  54. [62]

    J., Pelletier , S., et al

    Prinoth , B., Hoeijmakers , H. J., Pelletier , S., et al. 2023, , 678, A182

    2023

  55. [63]

    2021, , 505, 4515

    Roth , A., Drummond , B., H \'e brard , E., et al. 2021, , 505, 4515

    2021

  56. [64]

    B., Kempton , E

    Savel , A. B., Kempton , E. M. R., Malik , M., et al. 2022, , 926, 85

    2022

  57. [65]

    V., Prinoth , B., Pino , L., et al

    Seidel , J. V., Prinoth , B., Pino , L., et al. 2025, , 639, 902

    2025

  58. [66]

    L., St \"u rmer , J., et al

    Seifahrt , A., Bean , J. L., St \"u rmer , J., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. C. J. Evans , J. J. Bryant , & K. Motohara , 114471F

    2020

  59. [67]

    P., Fortney , J

    Showman , A. P., Fortney , J. J., Lewis , N. K., & Shabram , M. 2013, , 762, 24

    2013

  60. [68]

    P., Fortney , J

    Showman , A. P., Fortney , J. J., Lian , Y., et al. 2009, , 699, 564

    2009

  61. [69]

    P., Tan , X., & Parmentier , V

    Showman , A. P., Tan , X., & Parmentier , V. 2020, , 216, 139

    2020

  62. [70]

    2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Smith , P., Sanchez , J., Line , M., et al. 2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 245, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 119.04

    2025

  63. [71]

    Snellen , I. A. G., de Kok , R. J., de Mooij , E. J. W., & Albrecht , S. 2010, , 465, 1049

    2010

  64. [72]

    W., Kitzmann , D., & Patzer , A

    Stock , J. W., Kitzmann , D., & Patzer , A. B. C. 2022, , 517, 4070

    2022

  65. [73]

    R., Bouwman , J., Akeson , R

    Swain , M. R., Bouwman , J., Akeson , R. L., Lawler , S., & Beichman , C. A. 2008, , 674, 482

    2008

  66. [74]

    & Komacek , T

    Tan , X. & Komacek , T. D. 2019, , 886, 26

    2019

  67. [75]

    D., Batalha , N

    Tan , X., Komacek , T. D., Batalha , N. E., et al. 2024, , 528, 1016

    2024

  68. [76]

    Tsai , S.-M., Lee , E. K. H., Powell , D., et al. 2023, , 617, 483

    2023

  69. [77]

    P., Parmentier , V., Lee , E

    Wardenier , J. P., Parmentier , V., Lee , E. K. H., Line , M. R., & Gharib-Nezhad , E. 2021, , 506, 1258

    2021

  70. [78]

    P., Parmentier , V., Line , M

    Wardenier , J. P., Parmentier , V., Line , M. R., & Lee , E. K. H. 2023, , 525, 4942

    2023

  71. [79]

    P., Parmentier , V., Line , M

    Wardenier , J. P., Parmentier , V., Line , M. R., et al. 2024, , 136, 084403

    2024

  72. [80]

    2024, [ [arXiv] 2402.17325 ]

    Watanabe , N., Narita , N., & Hori , Y. 2024, [ [arXiv] 2402.17325 ]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    & Kreidberg , L

    Wordsworth , R. & Kreidberg , L. 2022, , 60, 159

    2022

  74. [82]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  75. [83]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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