Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

A dark, bare rock for TOI-1685 b from a JWST NIRSpec G395H phase curve

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A full JWST phase curve shows TOI-1685 b is a dark, bare rock whose dayside emission matches a zero-albedo blackbody.

desk verdict A transparent JWST phase-curve study whose qualitative bare-rock conclusion is plausible, but whose headline brightness-temperature ratio is not yet on solid ground. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03411 v1 pith:7FLTBRNT submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.EP

Rafael Luque , Brandon Park Coy , Qiao Xue , Adina D. Feinstein , Eva-Maria Ahrer , Quentin Changeat , Michael Zhang , Sarah E. Moran
show 4 more authors
Jacob L. Bean Edwin Kite Megan Weiner Mansfield Enric Pallé
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords TOI-1685bexoplanetatmospheresextrasolarrockyplanetsJWSTNIRSpecphasecurvesecondaryeclipseCosmicShorelinecorrelatednoise
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 reports a 19-hour JWST phase curve of TOI-1685 b, a hot rocky super-Earth orbiting an M-dwarf star, and argues that the planet is a bare rock. The transmission spectrum is flat, ruling out clear hydrogen-dominated atmospheres, and the emission spectrum is featureless. The dayside brightness temperature is $0.98\pm0.07$ times that of a perfect blackbody in the 3.8–5.2 µm band, with no measurable heat redistribution to the nightside and a very low albedo. If correct, TOI-1685 b joins a growing set of airless rocky planets around M stars and sharpens the empirical 'Cosmic Shoreline' separating planets that hold onto atmospheres from those that lose them. The paper also documents a strong, detector-dependent correlated noise component and uses a conservative resampling technique so the quoted uncertainties reflect it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the temperature scaling ratio $R\equiv T_{p,\mathrm{day}}/T_{p,\mathrm{max}}$, where $T_{p,\mathrm{max}}$ is the substellar temperature of a zero-albedo, zero-recirculation blackbody; $R\approx1$ means the dayside emits like a bare rock. The analysis models the full-orbit white-light and spectroscopic light curves with a transit-plus-sinusoid phase-curve model, fits eclipse-only segments as a cross-check, and inflates the parameter uncertainties with a prayer-bead resampling that preserves the correlated noise structure in the residuals. Forward radiative-transfer models of thin secondary atmospheres and simple single-species retrievals are then compared with the featureless emission spectrum and the flat transmission spectrum to decide which atmospheric cases remain. The longer-wavelength detector provides the quoted value because the shorter-wavelength light curve carries a stronger correlated-noise component and a linear trend that degrade the phase-curve parameters.

What would settle it

A decisive test is a new eclipse observation with different systematics—for example, a MIRI LRS spectrum or a NIRSpec visit at another roll angle—deep enough to detect or exclude the CO$_2$ band near 4.3 µm; a detected band would falsify the no-atmosphere claim, while a featureless blackbody upper limit would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that TOI-1685 b's dayside emission is indistinguishable, within $1\sigma$, from a zero-albedo blackbody with no heat redistribution, making a significant atmosphere unlikely. From the longer-wavelength detector (3.823–5.172 µm) the authors measure a dayside brightness ratio $R = T_{p,\mathrm{day}}/T_{p,\mathrm{max}} = 0.98\pm0.07$, corresponding to a dayside brightness temperature of $1360\pm100$ K, and a nightside consistent with near-zero emission; the shorter-wavelength detector gives a noisier $R = 1.10\pm0.10$. The transmission spectrum is flat and rules out clear H$_2$-dominated atmospheres, while emission forward models reject 1-mbar CO$_2$ and SO$_2$ atmospheres and a 10-bar H$_2$O atmosphere, although thinner versions remain possible. The authors conclude that the most probable picture is a dark, airless rock with an Earth-like density, noting that the JWST-derived radius ($1.37$–$1.39$ Earth radii) is slightly smaller than the TESS-based value.

Load-bearing premise

The bare-rock conclusion assumes that the strong, hour-scale correlated noise seen in the light curves shifts the measured eclipse depths and phase-curve parameters by random amounts rather than systematically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If TOI-1685 b is truly airless, it becomes a new anchor point on the Cosmic Shoreline, showing that rocky planets near 1000 K around M dwarfs do not retain detectable atmospheres.
  • The data put quantitative limits on secondary atmospheres: clear 1-mbar CO$_2$ and SO$_2$ atmospheres and a 10-bar H$_2$O atmosphere are rejected, so any surviving atmosphere must be thinner, cloudier, or less absorbing.
  • The JWST transit photometry revises the planet radius down to 1.37–1.39 Earth radii, making the bulk density consistent with an Earth-like, iron-bearing composition rather than a water-rich one.
  • The detector-dependent correlated noise documented here implies that NIRSpec long time-series measurements of ~100 ppm signals need conservative noise treatment before eclipse depths are trusted.
  • Because the NIRSpec band cannot separate surface mineralogies, the paper's conclusion makes longer-wavelength emission observations (for example, many MIRI LRS visits) the clear next step for identifying what the bare surface is made of.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the detector-dependent noise (4.5-hour scale in the blue detector, 2.5-hour in the red) is likely to affect other NIRSpec phase curves, so previously reported eclipse depths from this instrument may carry similar unmodeled systematics unless the analyses used comparably conservative uncertainties.
  • We infer that the 2–3σ gap between eclipse-only and full-phase-curve depths is the main internal tension: if the eclipse-only values are closer to truth, the dayside would be cooler than the quoted blackbody match, which still supports a bare rock, while if the full-phase-curve values are right, the shorter-wavelength detector's $R=1.10\pm0.10$ would need a physical explanation.
  • A testable extension would be to apply the same residual-preserving uncertainty treatment to existing NIRSpec phase curves of other rocky planets and compare noise timescales and eclipse-depth biases across detectors, which could confirm an instrumental origin.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST NIRSpec/G395H full-orbit phase-curve observations of the hot rocky super-Earth TOI-1685 b. Three independent data reductions (Eureka!, Tiberius, ExoTIC-JEDI) produce consistent light curves. The transmission spectrum is flat, ruling out clear H2-dominated atmospheres; the emission spectrum is featureless. A strong correlated-noise component (RMS 145-170 ppm, 2-3 times the eclipse depth) is present in both detectors, with different characteristic timescales (4.5 h in NRS1, 2.5 h in NRS2). After unsuccessful attempts to remove this noise, the authors use a prayer-bead analysis to inflate uncertainties. From NRS2 white-light data they derive a dayside brightness-temperature ratio R = 0.98 +/- 0.07 relative to a zero-albedo, no-redistribution blackbody, and conclude that TOI-1685 b is likely a dark, bare rock with no significant atmosphere.

Significance. If correct, the paper adds a new data point to the small sample of M-dwarf rocky planets observed in emission, supporting the cosmic-shoreline hypothesis. The strengths are the three independent reductions, the transparent characterization of correlated noise, and the use of forward models and retrievals to interpret the spectra. The main weakness is that the quantitative R and the no-heat-redistribution interpretation rest on data whose residuals are dominated by correlated noise at a level comparable to the signal; the prayer-bead method expands error bars but does not remove potential bias. The qualitative conclusion of a thin or absent atmosphere is plausible, but the paper's quantitative precision is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2.2, §3.3.2, §4.2.1] The central quantitative claim, R = 0.98 +/- 0.07, is taken from the NRS2 white-light phase curve with prayer-bead uncertainties. The data that enter this fit have residual RMS of 170 ppm (NRS2), 2-3 times the eclipse depth, and full phase-curve eclipse depths are 2-3 sigma larger than eclipse-only fits (§3.2.2). The prayer-bead analysis preserves the residual ordering and refits the same model, so it widens the error bars but does not correct a systematic offset in the eclipse depth. An unmodelled correlated component at the eclipse timescale could shift the eclipse depth by tens of ppm and change R by ~0.1. The authors should provide a test that the eclipse depth is insensitive to the correlated noise, for example by deriving R from the eclipse-only fits for NRS2, by fitting the phase curve with a Gaussian-process or periodic-noise model, or by injecting and recovering synthetic eclipses in the actual residuals. Without such a test, the precision of R is not supported.
  2. [§4.2.1] The headline R is based on NRS2 alone; NRS1 gives R = 1.10 +/- 0.10 and is discarded because of stronger correlated noise and a linear trend. This is an ad hoc choice, and the paper does not show that the NRS2 value is robust to reasonable alternatives, such as including NRS1 with a more flexible noise model or fitting both detectors jointly. The independent estimate from the low-resolution emission spectrum gives R = 0.94 +/- 0.04 for both detectors, which is formally consistent but not identical to the adopted value. The paper should state explicitly which estimate is adopted for the conclusions, justify that choice, and quantify how much the albedo and heat-redistribution results change if R = 0.94 or R = 1.10 are used instead.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2.2] The statement that the eclipse depth is 2-3 sigma larger in the full phase-curve fit than in eclipse-only fits is not specified by detector or wavelength; for NRS2 the offset is generally smaller (Table 8). Please quantify for each detector.
  2. [§3.2.2] The sentence 'they are too deep compared to the maximum expected given the planet's temperature' is ambiguous: the NRS2 full phase-curve eclipse depth corresponds to R = 0.98, i.e., near the maximum expected. Please clarify which detector and which comparison are meant.
  3. [Abstract, §3.1, Table 2] The NRS2 wavelength range is quoted inconsistently: 3.823-5.172 um in the abstract and §3.1, but 3.850-5.172 um in Table 2. Please harmonize.
  4. [Figure 5] The legend of Figure 5 is crowded and the symbols overlap; a separate table of the eclipse-depth values (already in Table 8) would make the figure easier to read.
  5. [§4.2.1] The nightside brightness temperature posteriors extend to zero (e.g., Tp,night = 1100+210-1100 K for NRS1); quoting a 95% upper limit would be more informative.
  6. [§3.3.2] The sentence describing the prayer-bead procedure is awkward; consider rephrasing: 'For each bead, we shift the residuals by one exposure time, add them to the best-fit model, and refit the new light curve with the same model and priors.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bare-rock conclusion is derived from measured flux ratios and independent forward-model/retrieval comparisons, not from the model inputs.

full rationale

The central claims of the paper are derived from direct measurements rather than from definitions or fitted parameters that force the conclusion. The brightness temperature ratio R = Tp,day/Tp,max is computed from the observed planet-to-star flux ratio in the phase curve and emission spectrum, converted to temperature with a PHOENIX stellar model; the value 0.98 ± 0.07 for NRS2 could have come out differently (indeed NRS1 gives 1.10 ± 0.10), so it is not constrained by construction. The transmission and emission conclusions are reached by comparing the observed spectra to TauREx and HELIOS forward models using Bayesian evidence; the preference for an airless basalt model over atmospheric models is scored by the data and is not a self-definitional preference. The self-citations, including Zhang et al. (2024), Xue et al. (2024), and Weiner Mansfield et al. (2024), provide methods and comparative context but are not load-bearing: the calculations rely on standard, externally implemented codes (HELIOS, TauREx, PHOENIX, batman) and on stellar parameters from Burt et al. (2024), an independent source. The paper openly flags its main data-quality limitation in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.2, noting that the full-phase-curve eclipse depths are 2–3 sigma deeper than eclipse-only fits and that the prayer-bead method inflates uncertainties but does not correct a potential systematic bias. That is a correctness risk, not a circularity: no equation reduces the measured eclipse depth or phase-curve parameters to the bare-rock hypothesis, and the final interpretation is presented as one of several data-driven possibilities consistent with a very low-pressure atmosphere. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the conclusion is not equivalent to the inputs. Consequently, no circular step rises to the level required by the rubric, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central interpretation rests on standard phase-curve modeling, stellar model assumptions, and a detector-level data-quality choice. All free parameters are standard fitted quantities in exoplanet phase-curve analysis; the strongest a priori assumption is that the unmodeled correlated noise does not bias the eclipse depths.

free parameters (6)
  • Fp/Fstar (planet-to-star flux ratio) = NRS1: 103±5 ppm; NRS2: 122±7 ppm (white light, prayer-bead)
    Fitted to the white-light phase curve; directly sets the dayside brightness temperature and the blackbody ratio R.
  • C1 (phase-curve amplitude coefficient) = NRS1: 0.36±0.21; NRS2: 0.49±0.13
    Fitted to the white-light phase curve; used with D1 to derive nightside flux and heat redistribution efficiency.
  • D1 (phase-curve skew/offset coefficient) = NRS1: -0.54±0.29; NRS2: -0.05±0.11
    Fitted to the white-light phase curve; determines the phase offset of the brightness peak.
  • Rp/Rstar (planet-to-star radius ratio) = NRS1: 0.02801±0.00019; NRS2: 0.02746±0.00021
    Fitted to the transit; combined with stellar parameters to derive the planet radius and density.
  • c1 (linear trend coefficient for NRS1) = -0.00181±0.00007
    Fitted to account for the instrumental drift in NRS1; if misestimated it could bias the phase-curve parameters.
  • Stellar spectrum multiplier in brightness-temperature fit = Gaussian prior with mean 1, sigma 0.03
    Fitted scaling factor that absorbs uncertainties in the PHOENIX stellar model when converting flux ratios to brightness temperatures.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The planet is on a circular orbit (e=0), so the phase-curve model uses a single sinusoid plus transit and two eclipses.
    Stated in Section 3.1. A free-eccentricity fit gives e consistent with circular, but the model itself assumes zero eccentricity and a fixed argument of periastron.
  • domain assumption Limb-darkening coefficients are fixed to quadratic values from ExoTIC-LD using stellar parameters from Burt et al. (2024).
    Section 3.1. If the stellar parameters or limb-darkening model are inaccurate, transit depth and radius estimates could shift, although the effect is expected to be small.
  • domain assumption The PHOENIX stellar model accurately represents the star's spectrum in the NIRSpec passband, with only a 1% systematic uncertainty.
    Section 4.2.1. The brightness temperature ratio R is computed by multiplying measured flux ratios by the stellar model; a larger stellar-model error would directly change R.
  • standard math The prayer-bead method preserves the correlated-noise structure and yields unbiased uncertainties when residuals are shifted and re-fit.
    Section 3.3.2. The method relies on the residuals being representative of the noise; if the correlated noise is non-stationary, the prayer-bead uncertainties may still underestimate the true bias.
  • ad hoc to paper NRS2 data are more reliable than NRS1 for constraining the phase-curve parameters, because NRS1 shows stronger correlated noise and a linear trend.
    Section 4.2.1. The paper uses this to prefer the NRS2 value R=0.98±0.07 over NRS1's R=1.10±0.10. This is a data-quality judgment, not an externally established fact.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A dark, bare rock for TOI-1685 b from a JWST NIRSpec G395H phase curve." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7FLTBRNT

@misc{pith2026241203411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A dark, bare rock for TOI-1685 b from a JWST NIRSpec G395H phase curve},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7FLTBRNT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03411}
}
abstract

We report JWST NIRSpec/G395H observations of TOI-1685 b, a hot rocky super-Earth orbiting an M2.5V star, during a full orbit. We obtain transmission and emission spectra of the planet and characterize the properties of the phase curve, including its amplitude and offset. The transmission spectrum rules out clear H$_2$-dominated atmospheres, while secondary atmospheres (made of water, methane, or carbon dioxide) cannot be statistically distinguished from a flat line. The emission spectrum is featureless and consistent with a blackbody-like brightness temperature, helping rule out thick atmospheres with high mean molecular weight. Collecting all evidence, the properties of TOI-1685 b are consistent with a blackbody with no heat redistribution and a low albedo, with a dayside brightness temperature 0.98$\pm$0.07 times that of a perfect blackbody in the NIRSpec NRS2 wavelength range (3.823-5.172 um). Our results add to the growing number of seemingly airless M-star rocky planets, thus constraining the location of the "Cosmic Shoreline". Three independent data reductions have been carried out, all showing a high-amplitude correlated noise component in the white and spectroscopic light curves. The correlated noise properties are different between the NRS1 and NRS2 detectors - importantly the timescales of the strongest components (4.5 hours and 2.5 hours, respectively) - suggesting the noise is from instrumental rather than astrophysical origins. We encourage the community to look into the systematics of NIRSpec for long time-series observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03411 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The white-light phase curve of TOI-1685 b from 2.844-3.715 µm (NRS1, left column) and 3.823-5.172 µm (NRS2, right column) from JWST. Top: data from the Eureka! reduction (purple) and planet flux model fit to the data (gold). Bottom: residuals of the fit. Circles show binned data every 25 integrations to improve visualization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Position of TOI-1685 b in a mass-radius diagram. Internal composition models of rocky planets from Zeng et al. (2016). The change in radius from the highest precision of JWST observations compared to TESS makes the density of TOI-1685 b even more consistent with Earth than previously reported. The residuals in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Transmission spectrum of TOI-1685 b using NIRSpec/G395H. Top: Individual transmission spectrum from the Eureka! (purple), Tiberius (red), and ExoTIC-JEDI (orange) data reductions. Bottom: Difference between each data reduction in units of their standard deviation. 3.0 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Emission spectrum of TOI-1685 b using NIRSpec/G395H. Different data reductions follow the same color convention as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Difference between the white light curves from each data reduction. Each panel shows the median absolute deviation of the data (MAD). Apart from the presence of a small linear trend (-34 ppm d−1 in NRS1 and 64 ppm d−1 in NRS2), the differences follow a Gaussian distrib…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of the Independent Component Analy￾sis (ICA) for NRS2. We created 46 independent eigenvec￾tors using the FastICA functionality in scikit-learn. We show the results for a single spectroscopic channel (λcen = 4.143±0.017). Top: Black is the reduced spectroscopic …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Summary of transmission retrievals with TauREx. Left: Best-fit spectra and transit observations (black data points) for TOI-1685 b. Right: Probability density for the four runs including clouds. Our retrieval exploration rejects the clear primary atmosphere case. For t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Contour plot showing the planetary dayside temperature of TOI-1685 b as a function of Bond albedo and heat redistribution factor (ε) compared to estimates for Solar System bodies from Xue et al. (2024); Weiner Mansfield et al. (2024). The yellow arrow indicates Tp,day…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example poor-fitting emission models of atmospheres and their associated temperature-pressure profiles using HELIOS. In all tested atmospheres, the airless basaltic model is preferred. for uncertainties in the emitting surface area (5.6%) and semi-major axis (3.0%, Bu…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Summary of emission retrievals with TauREx3. Left: Best-fit spectra and transit observations (black data points) for TOI-1685 b. Right: Probability density for runs where the surface pressure is fixed (top right) or the VMR is fixed to 100 % (bottom right). Our retrie…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Corner plot for emission results with TauREx3. The forward models of those retrievals have a fixed radius and temperature gradient, allowing to reject some part of the parameter space. Since the eclipse spectra have large uncertainties and do not contain obvious spect…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Model eclipse spectra of possible low-albedo surface types from Hu et al. (2012) in units of brightness temperature, ignoring the opposition surge effect. High brightness temperatures at low wavelengths are due to the contribution from reflected light. Black points re…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Results of running the residuals of the white-light and spectroscopic light curves through a Lomb-Scargle pe￾riodogram. (a) A gallery of the residuals from the Eureka! pipeline for each spectroscopic channel. (b) The periodogram results. The color of the lines between…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Posterior distributions of fitted parameters from the NRS1 white light curve analysis. As discussed in §3.3.2, we performed the prayer-bead method on the Eureka! reduction with MCMC, resulting in 4370 values of median and ±1σ. We then re-created 4370 Gaussian distribu…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Posterior distributions of fitted parameters from the NRS2 white light curve analysis. See the caption of Fig.18 for more information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. TOI-421 b: A Hot Sub-Neptune with a Haze-Free, Low Mean Molecular Weight Atmosphere

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

    TOI-421 b, a 920 K sub-Neptune around a Sun-like star, has a clear, hydrogen-dominated, near-solar-metallicity atmosphere with detected water, based on JWST transmission spectroscopy.

  2. Population-level Hypothesis Testing with Rocky Planet Emission Data: A Tentative Trend in the Brightness Temperatures of M-Earths

    astro-ph.EP 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A tentative trend in the brightness temperatures of nine M-Earths suggests hotter planets have darker surfaces or thinner atmospheres, but the statistical evidence depends on the stellar model used.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The impact of observing cadence and undetected companions on the accuracy of planet mass measurements from radial velocity monitoring

    Akana Murphy, J. M., Luque, R., & Batalha, N. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02521

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.02521 2024

  2. [2]

    F., Changeat, Q., Venot, O., Waldmann, I

    Al-Refaie, A. F., Changeat, Q., Venot, O., Waldmann, I. P., & Tinetti, G. 2022, ApJ, 932, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6dcd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6dcd 2022

  3. [3]

    F., Changeat, Q., Waldmann, I

    Al-Refaie, A. F., Changeat, Q., Waldmann, I. P., & Tinetti, G. 2021, ApJ, 917, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0252

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0252 2021

  4. [4]

    R., MacDonald, R

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac661

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac661 2022

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    E., Wakeford, H

    Alderson, L., Batalha, N. E., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad32c9 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad32c9 2024

  7. [7]

    E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al

    Batalha, N. E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 064501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0 2017

  8. [8]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503, doi: 10.21105/joss.04503

    Bell, T., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503, doi: 10.21105/joss.04503

    doi:10.21105/joss.04503 2022

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    2023, Exploring the existence and diversity of volatile-rich water worlds, JWST Proposal

    Benneke, B., Mikal-Evans, T., Acuna, L., et al. 2023, Exploring the existence and diversity of volatile-rich water worlds, JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #4098

    2023

  2. [10]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03325

    Benneke, B., Roy, P.-A., Coulombe, L.-P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03325

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    A., Kempton, E

    Bergin, E. A., Kempton, E. M. R., Hirschmann, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd377

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Ferruit, P., Giardino, G., et al

    Birkmann, S. M., Ferruit, P., Giardino, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142592

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, A&A, 650, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140688

    Bluhm, P., Pall´ e, E., Molaverdikhani, K., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140688

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, PASP, 131, 108005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc —

    Buchner, J. 2019, PASP, 131, 108005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc —. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Hooton, M

    Burt, J. A., Hooton, M. J., Mamajek, E. E., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5b52

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.14.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10870758

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.14.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10870758

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    B., & Agol, E

    Cowan, N. B., & Agol, E. 2008, ApJL, 678, L129, doi: 10.1086/588553 —. 2011, ApJ, 726, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/82

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    B., Machalek, P., Croll, B., et al

    Cowan, N. B., Machalek, P., Croll, B., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/82

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Malik, M., Hill, M. L., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac886b

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 160

    Essack, Z., Seager, S., & Pajusalu, M. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 160

    2020

  13. [21]

    J., Allen, N., et al

    Fisher, C., Akin, C. J., Allen, N., et al. 2023, Constraining the Oxidation State of the Super-Earth TOI-1685 b, JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #4195

    2023

  14. [22]

    2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Conley, A., Meierjurgen Farr, W., et al. 2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    2013

  15. [23]

    2022, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 577, 117255

    Gaillard, F., Bernadou, F., Roskosz, M., et al. 2022, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 577, 117255

    2022

  16. [24]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39

    2023

  17. [25]

    1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    1986 doi

  18. [26]

    L., & Seager, S

    Hu, R., Ehlmann, B. L., & Seager, S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 752, 7

    2012

  19. [27]

    2024, Nature, 630, 609

    Hu, R., Bello-Arufe, A., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 609

    2024

  20. [28]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 JWST Transiting Exoplanet Community Early Release Science Team, Ahrer, E.-M., Alderson, L., et al

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 JWST Transiting Exoplanet Community Early Release Science Team, Ahrer, E.-M., Alderson, L., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 649, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05269-w

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Louden, T., et al

    Kirk, J., Wheatley, P. J., Louden, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx752

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    V., MacDonald, R

    Kirk, J., Rackham, B. V., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abfcd2

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    B., Fu, G., et al

    Kirk, J., Stevenson, K. B., Fu, G., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad19df

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    S., & Barnett, M

    Kite, E. S., & Barnett, M. N. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 18264

    2020

  26. [34]

    Koll, D. D. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 134

    2022

  27. [35]

    C., Triaud, A

    Kral, Q., Wyatt, M. C., Triaud, A. H., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 2649

    2018

  28. [36]

    2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Kreidberg, L., Koll, D. D. B., Morley, C., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 87, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1497-4

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2281, doi: 10.21105/joss.02281

    Laginja, I., & Wakeford, H. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2281, doi: 10.21105/joss.02281

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 955, L22

    Lim, O., Benneke, B., Doyon, R., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 955, L22

    2023

  32. [40]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  33. [41]

    1971, AJ, 76, 544

    Lucy, L., & Sweeney, M. 1971, AJ, 76, 544

    1971

  34. [42]

    2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164 26

    Luque, R., & Pall´ e, E. 2022, Science, 377, 1211, doi: 10.1126/science.abl7164 26

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Changeat, Q., et al

    Luque, R., Bean, J. L., Changeat, Q., et al. 2023, The First Atmospheric Study of a Bona Fide Water World, JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #3263

    2023

  36. [44]

    M., et al

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fu, G., May, E. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1317, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Cowan, N

    Lyu, X., Koll, D. D., Cowan, N. B., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 152

    2024

  38. [46]

    Malik, M., Kempton, E. M. R., Koll, D. D. B., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 886, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a05

    doi

  39. [47]

    M., et al

    Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., Mendon¸ ca, J. M., et al. 2019b, AJ, 157, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1084

    doi

  40. [48]

    M., et al

    Malik, M., Grosheintz, L., Mendon¸ ca, J. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/56

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Bennett, K

    May, E., MacDonald, R. J., Bennett, K. A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 959, L9

    2023

  42. [50]

    E., Stevenson, K

    Moran, S. E., Stevenson, K. B., Sing, D. K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Brandeker, A., Kitzmann, D., et al

    Patel, J. A., Brandeker, A., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450748

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490

    2011 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    Powell, M. J. D. 1964, The Computer Journal, 7, 155, doi: 10.1093/comjnl/7.2.155

    1964 doi

  46. [54]

    R., Latham, D

    Ricker, G. R., Latham, D. W., Vanderspek, R. K., et al. 2010, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2010

  47. [55]

    K., Liu, R., & Wang, A

    Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., Liu, R., & Wang, A. 2022, ApJL, 928, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5b6f

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    K., Mukherjee, S., et al

    Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 659, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05677-y

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  50. [58]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278 STScI Development Team. 2013, pysynphot: Synthetic photometry software package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.023

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    2024, Reflectance and Emission Modelling of Airless Exoplanets, Tech

    Kreidberg, L. 2024, Reflectance and Emission Modelling of Airless Exoplanets, Tech. rep., Copernicus Meetings

    2024

  52. [60]

    2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, doi: 10.1080/00107510802066753

    Trotta, R. 2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, doi: 10.1080/00107510802066753

    2008 doi

  53. [61]

    K., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al

    Wachiraphan, P., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10987, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10987

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    L., Batalha, N

    Wallack, N. L., Batalha, N. E., Alderson, L., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3917 Weiner Mansfield, M., Xue, Q., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, No Thick Atmosphere on the Terrestrial Exoplanet Gl 486b, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8161

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    A., Malik, M., Ih, J., et al

    Whittaker, E. A., Malik, M., Ih, J., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 258

    2022

  56. [64]

    L., Zhang, M., et al

    Xue, Q., Bean, J. L., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad72e9

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    J., & Catling, D

    Zahnle, K. J., & Catling, D. C. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 122

    2017

  58. [66]

    D., & Jacobsen, S

    Zeng, L., Sasselov, D. D., & Jacobsen, S. B. 2016, ApJ, 819, 127, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/127

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 961, L44

    Zhang, M., Hu, R., Inglis, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 961, L44

    2024

  60. [68]

    2022, A&A, 664, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142912

    Zieba, S., Zilinskas, M., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142912

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    2023, Nature, 620, 746, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 746, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.