Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Evidence for a volcanic atmosphere on the sub-Earth L98-59b

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that JWST NIRSpec G395H transmission spectra of the sub-Earth L 98-59 b favor an SO$_2$-rich atmosphere by $3.6\sigma$ over a flat line, and interprets this as evidence for volcanically sustained outgassing.

desk verdict Careful JWST spectrum of L98-59b shows a Bayesian hint of SO2 at 3.6σ, but the flat-line null cannot be rejected (p=0.81) and NRS2 systematics remain a real worry; the title overstates the case. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18680 v1 pith:GJ4S62YQ submitted 2025-01-30 astro-ph.EP

Aaron Bello-Arufe , Mario Damiano , Katherine A. Bennett , Renyu Hu , Luis Welbanks , Ryan J. MacDonald , Darryl Z. Seligman , David K. Sing
show 3 more authors
Armen Tokadjian Apurva Oza Jeehyun Yang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetatmosphericcompositionextrasolarrockyplanetsvolcanismSO2atmospheretransmissionspectroscopyJamesWebbSpaceTelescopeMdwarfstarsplanetaryinterior
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

Using four transits observed by the JWST NIRSpec G395H instrument, the paper asks whether the sub-Earth-sized planet L 98-59 b has an atmosphere. Although a bare-rock flat-line spectrum fits the data acceptably by chi-squared ($p=0.81$), Bayesian model comparison prefers an SO$_2$-rich atmosphere over the flat line by $3.6\sigma$, with the preference concentrated in wavelength regions where SO$_2$ absorbs. The paper interprets this as evidence for a volcanically outgassed, steady-state atmosphere in which volcanic output balances atmospheric escape. The case matters because the planet is a prime candidate for volcanic detection, and if the interpretation is right, it would be the first atmosphere found on a sub-Earth and the first volcanic atmosphere beyond the solar system.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is Bayesian model comparison of transmission spectra: a flat-line (airless) model is compared, via nested-sampling evidence estimation, against atmospheric models containing SO$_2$, using spectra from two independent data reductions and three retrieval frameworks. The physical hinge is the steady-state balance between volcanic outgassing and atmospheric escape, which converts the spectral preference into quantitative interior constraints: a required heat flux, tidal quality factor, oxygen fugacity of the mantle, and magma ocean radius. The spectral signatures that drive the preference are the SO$_2$ absorption bands at $2.8\text{--}3.1$ and $3.9\text{--}4.5$ microns.

What would settle it

Observe additional transits of L 98-59 b with the same instrument and check whether the SO$_2$ absorption bands at $3.9\text{--}4.5$ microns deepen and reach roughly $5\sigma$; if the preference stays below $5\sigma$ or the band shape changes under different systematics treatments, the volcanic-atmosphere claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the combined transmission spectrum of L 98-59 b from four NIRSpec G395H transits shows a statistical preference, based on Bayesian evidence, for an SO$_2$-dominated atmosphere over a featureless flat line. The airless model remains statistically acceptable, and no individual gas abundance is tightly constrained by the retrievals, but three independent retrieval analyses consistently find the SO$_2$ scenario preferred at roughly $3\text{--}3.6\sigma$, and leave-one-out cross-validation shows the preference is driven by the spectral regions where SO$_2$ is the dominant absorber. Self-consistent photochemical forward models of a volcanically sustained SO$_2$ atmosphere reproduce the data well and predict high abundances of SO$_3$ and elemental sulfur. The authors then read the result as indicating active volcanism: balancing the inferred SO$_2$ inventory against XUV-driven escape requires an outgassing rate per unit mass at least eight times that of Io, and if the runaway melting mechanism operates, a subsurface magma ocean extending to $60\text{--}90\%$ of the planet's radius would be present.

Load-bearing premise

The spectral features that favor SO$_2$ are small, and the claim depends on the assumption that residual correlated noise in the lightcurves is not strong enough to create or cancel the $3.9\text{--}4.5$ micron bands; the $\sim50\text{--}100$ ppm inter-detector offsets applied in one reduction show this is a live concern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the SO$_2$ atmosphere is real, L 98-59 b would be the first sub-Earth exoplanet with a detected atmosphere, and the first volcanic atmosphere known beyond the solar system.
  • The planet would need roughly eight times the volcanic outgassing and tidal heating per unit mass of Io, and likely a subsurface magma ocean reaching $60\text{--}90\%$ of its radius.
  • The atmosphere's persistence implies the planet retained part of its sulfur supply, and the SO$_2$-rich composition implies an oxidized mantle with oxygen fugacity above $f\mathrm{O}_2 > \mathrm{IW}+2.7$.
  • Volcanic outgassing would be established as a viable mechanism for reviving secondary atmospheres on tidally heated rocky planets around M dwarfs, changing expectations for why atmosphere detections on such planets have been rare.
  • The self-consistent chemical model predicts an atmosphere dominated by SO$_2$ with abundant SO$_3$ and elemental sulfur, and no sulfur haze, so the same planet should appear clear of aerosol extinction at other wavelengths.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A clean test would be additional transits: the paper estimates six more could push the Bayesian preference to roughly $5\sigma$ if the SO$_2$ interpretation is correct, so a non-confirmation would indicate systematic noise rather than a volcanic atmosphere.
  • Because the chi-squared p-value cannot distinguish the flat line from the SO$_2$ model, the case rests on the prior volume and model parametrization; a different choice of prior on mixing ratios (e.g., allowing a nitrogen-dominated flat atmosphere) could change the significance, as the paper notes in one of its retrieval analyses.
  • The inference of a magma ocean assumes runaway melting driven by tidal heating; if the volcanism is instead powered by radiogenic heat, the interior structure constraints would be very different and the apparent tidal-quality-factor constraint would not apply.
  • If confirmed, the result would suggest that atmospheric searches around M dwarfs should prioritize tidally heated planets, since their outgassing can maintain high-molecular-weight atmospheres even when XUV stripping is severe.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST NIRSpec G395H transmission spectroscopy of the sub-Earth L 98-59 b from four transits, analyzed with two independent reduction pipelines (Eureka! and FIREFLy) and interpreted with three retrieval frameworks (ExoTR, Aurora, POSEIDON) plus self-consistent photochemical-climate models from EPACRIS. The central claim is that a 100% SO2 atmosphere is preferred over a flat line by 3.6σ in Bayesian evidence, which the authors interpret as evidence for a volcanically outgassed, steady-state SO2 atmosphere sustained by tidal heating. The paper also derives geophysical consequences (tidal quality factor, subsurface magma ocean radius, mantle oxygen fugacity) conditional on this interpretation. The authors explicitly state that the result should not be considered a detection, that the flat line cannot be rejected by p-value (p=0.81), and that the SO2 signal is degenerate with an N2 flat model, but the title and abstract nevertheless assert evidence for a volcanic atmosphere.

Significance. If the SO2 atmosphere on L 98-59 b is real, this would be the first detection of a volcanically sustained atmosphere on a rocky sub-Earth, with major implications for atmospheric escape, tidal heating, interior evolution, and the cosmic shoreline. The paper is methodologically strong in several respects: it uses two independent reductions, three independent retrieval codes, includes a self-consistent photochemical model, and compares against spectra that were published before the JWST observations (Seligman et al. 2024), avoiding circularity. The data and products are promised to be public. However, the statistical evidence is currently a Bayesian model preference rather than a detection, and the interpretation as volcanic hinges on assumptions that are not tested by the data. The paper would be publishable as a tentative, well-characterized hint, but as written the title and conclusions overstate the robustness of the detection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.2; Section 6] The 3.6σ figure is a Bayesian evidence preference for a 100% SO2 model over a flat line, not a detection in the frequentist sense. The flat-line model has χ2=197.84 for 216 dof (p=0.81), and the pure SO2 model also has p=0.91; neither is rejected. The paper itself says in Section 4.1 that the result 'should not be considered as a detection.' Despite this, the title and abstract state 'Evidence for a volcanic atmosphere.' This is an overstatement of the statistical support, and since all geophysical inferences in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 proceed under the assumption that the SO2 atmosphere is real, the framing must be made explicitly tentative.
  2. [Section 4.1; Section 3.1] The ExoTR analysis states that SO2 is degenerate with N2, which would result in a flat transmission spectrum. An N2-dominated atmosphere is therefore indistinguishable from a bare rock in the G395H bandpass under the current data quality. The reported Bayes factor between the SO2 model and the flat line is consequently not a test of 'atmosphere vs. no atmosphere' but only of SO2 spectral features vs. a featureless spectrum. A direct model comparison including an N2 (or other high mean molecular weight, flat-spectrum) atmosphere is needed to support the claim that the data favor an atmosphere at all, rather than merely a particular absorber.
  3. [Sections 2.1 and 2.2; Section 4.2; Figure 6] The SO2 signal that drives the model preference is concentrated in the 3.9–4.5 µm region on NRS2, which is the same detector that required the most aggressive systematics corrections in both pipelines. Eureka! trimmed the first 640 integrations of the second and fourth NRS2 visits because of low-frequency undulations, and FIREFLy used up to 6th-order polynomial systematics plus 50–100 ppm inter-detector offsets, which the authors themselves describe as 'much too large to be physical.' The amplitude of the SO2 features is comparable to or smaller than these corrections. Agreement between two pipelines that both model the same detector's time-correlated noise with flexible functions does not exclude a common systematic mode. Please provide robustness tests such as retrievals on data with the trimmed regions removed, fits using only NRS1 data, or injection-and-recovery tests of synthetic SO2 signals in the presence of the observed systematics.
  4. [Section 4.3; Appendix A.4] POSEIDON finds no evidence for spectral deviations from a flat line in any individual visit; the preference for an atmosphere appears only in the combined four-visit spectrum. Meanwhile, the white-lightcurve fits show significant visit-to-visit and pipeline-to-pipeline differences in Rp/Rs, which the authors attribute to correlated noise rather than stellar inhomogeneities. This raises the possibility that the apparent SO2 features in the combined spectrum arise from coherent averaging of time-correlated systematics rather than a real planetary signal. The paper should report the per-visit evidence for the SO2 feature and assess whether the feature is consistently present across all four visits.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'due because' should be corrected to 'because' or 'due to'.
  2. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'these model assessments metrics provide a single value' should read 'these model assessment metrics provide a single value.'
  3. [Section 5.2] The comparison of volcanic outgassing rates between L 98-59 b and Io should explicitly state the masses used for the per-unit-mass factor, since the raw rate ratio and the per-unit-mass ratio differ by a factor of order the mass ratio.
  4. [Table A1] In Table A1, the FIREFLy row for Transit 2 NRS1 appears to be missing entries for i and a/Rs in the printed text; please check the table formatting.
  5. [Appendix B] The adoption of S4 cross sections as a proxy for S8 opacity and the use of the GJ 176 MUSCLES spectrum as a proxy for L 98-59's high-energy flux are assumptions that should be flagged in the main text, not only in the appendix, since they affect the self-consistent photochemical model predictions.
  6. [Figure 6] The color scale for Δelpd is hard to read when the figure is printed in grayscale; please use a more perceptually uniform colormap or add labels to the color bar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SO2 model comparison is independent of the volcanic interpretation, and the Seligman et al. prediction predates the JWST data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a Bayesian model comparison between measured transmission spectra and atmospheric models, not a quantity fitted into existence. The 100% SO2 and 14-parameter Aurora models are compared to the data with the same number of free parameters as the flat-line null model, so the reported 3.6 sigma preference is a direct likelihood/evidence calculation rather than a circular reduction. The Seligman et al. (2024) volcanic SO2 spectra are cited prominently, and one author overlaps, but those spectra were published before the JWST observations and are tested against the data with only free vertical offsets; the shape of the predicted SO2 features is not fitted from the observed spectrum. The paper even states in Section 4.1 that 'This result should not be considered as a detection' and reports flat-line p=0.81, so the statistical weakness is explicitly disclosed and belongs to correctness risk rather than circularity. The interior and geochemical inferences in Sections 5 and 6 are explicitly conditional on the assumed SO2 scenario and do not feed back into the detection. No equation or fitted parameter is used both as input and as the claimed output.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central SO2 detection rests on retrieval modeling with free parameters for composition, offsets, temperature and clouds. The volcanic and interior interpretation adds a chain of assumptions: 1% escape efficiency, Earth-like magma volatile content, the Io-style runaway melting mechanism, and literature eccentricity/tidal parameters. The paper identifies most of these assumptions explicitly, but they are not independently measured for L98-59b.

free parameters (10)
  • SO2 volume mixing ratio = Posterior peaks near 100% (log10 SO2 = -0.09+0.09/-1.85 in POSEIDON; 97+2/-5% in EPACRIS-coupled retrievals)
    Retrieved in the 14-parameter and EPACRIS-coupled models; the interpretation as an SO2-dominated atmosphere depends on this high abundance, though the 3.6 sigma comparison fixes it at 100%.
  • Inter-detector offset (NRS1 vs NRS2) = A few ppm, consistent with zero (e.g. -4.8+5.4/-5.1 ppm)
    Free parameter in all models; allows the two NIRSpec detectors to be aligned, and forcing it to zero changes the preference to 3.8 sigma.
  • Transit depth / planetary radius at reference pressure = ~0.85 R_Earth (prior range 0.72-0.98)
    Vertical offset in retrievals; degenerates with gas abundance and affects the shape of the model spectrum.
  • Atmospheric temperature = 596 +125/-143 K (Aurora 14-param); ExoTR prefers ~250 K
    Free parameter in many retrievals; a lower temperature increases the apparent absorption feature amplitude.
  • Cloud top pressure = Unconstrained; Psurf > 1e-5 bar to 2 sigma
    Free parameter in retrievals; clouds do not improve the evidence, so the SO2 features are attributed to a clear atmosphere.
  • Lightcurve systematics model coefficients = Polynomial degrees 1-6 plus x/y shift terms per visit/detector
    Chosen by BIC in FIREFLy and fixed/free in Eureka!; these coefficients absorb low-frequency noise and can shift transit depths by 50-100 ppm.
  • Escape efficiency = 1% (assumed)
    Sets the mass-loss rate MDot_escape ~ 2e5 kg/s; the required volcanic rate Mvolc ~ 1-2e9 kg/s scales inversely with this parameter.
  • Volatile (sulfur and carbon) content x in magma = 100-200 ppm (bulk silicate Earth)
    Converts the required outgassing rate to an extrusive volcanic rate; if x were ten times larger, the volcanic rate would be ten times smaller.
  • Love number k2 = 0.1-0.5 (assumed range)
    Used with the tidal model to map tidal dissipation to magma ocean radius; the 0.6-0.9 Rp prediction spans this assumed range.
  • Tidal quality factor Q = Q_L98-59b < 1400 Q_Io (from Appendix E)
    Constraint derived by assuming tidal heating per unit mass at least that of Io; this assumption anchors the interior interpretation.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Energy-limited escape formula with 1% efficiency governs atmospheric mass loss.
    Section 5.2: MDot_escape ~ 2e5 kg/s; if escape were more efficient, the required volcanic replenishment would be larger.
  • ad hoc to paper The bulk silicate Earth's volatile content (x ~ 100-200 ppm) applies to L98-59b.
    Section 5.2 uses Earth values to estimate volcanic rates; L98-59b's bulk composition is not directly measured.
  • domain assumption The runaway melting mechanism of Peale et al. (1979) and Seligman et al. (2024) applies to L98-59b.
    Section 5.3 and Appendix E; the magma ocean radius prediction relies on this mechanism being active.
  • domain assumption SO2 detected in transmission originates from volcanism, not from other sources.
    The whole volcanic interpretation assumes SO2 is outgassed rather than, e.g., delivered by impacts or produced by photochemistry from a different reservoir.
  • domain assumption The eccentricity and tidal heating parameters from Demangeon et al. (2021) and Rajpaul et al. (2024) are correct.
    Section 1 and Appendix E use e = 0.103 or 0.167; tidal heating scales as e^2, so the inferred volcanic rates are sensitive to this.
  • ad hoc to paper GJ 176's MUSCLES spectrum is a suitable proxy for L98-59's high-energy stellar flux.
    Appendix B: the photochemical model uses this proxy; the XUV flux directly sets the escape rate and photochemistry.
  • ad hoc to paper S4 cross sections approximate S8 opacity in the UV/visible.
    Appendix B states this approximation explicitly; it affects the predicted sulfur haze and temperature inversion.
  • standard math Transmission spectroscopy assumes hydrostatic equilibrium and a known pressure-radius reference.
    Standard retrieval assumption; not expected to bias the SO2 comparison but underpins all models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence for a volcanic atmosphere on the sub-Earth L98-59b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJ4S62YQ

@misc{pith2026250118680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence for a volcanic atmosphere on the sub-Earth L98-59b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJ4S62YQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18680}
}
abstract

Assessing the prevalence of atmospheres on rocky planets around M-dwarf stars is a top priority of exoplanet science. High-energy activity from M-dwarfs can destroy the atmospheres of these planets, which could explain the lack of atmosphere detections to date. Volcanic outgassing has been proposed as a mechanism to replenish the atmospheres of tidally-heated rocky planets. L 98-59 b, a sub-Earth transiting a nearby M dwarf, was recently identified as the most promising exoplanet to detect a volcanic atmosphere. We present the transmission spectrum of L 98-59 b from four transits observed with JWST NIRSpec G395H. Although the airless model provides an adequate fit to the data based on its $\chi^2$, an SO$_2$ atmosphere is preferred by 3.6$\sigma$ over a flat line in terms of the Bayesian evidence. Such an atmosphere would likely be in a steady state where volcanism balances escape. If so, L 98-59 b must experience at least eight times as much volcanism and tidal heating per unit mass as Io. If volcanism is driven by runaway melting of the mantle, we predict the existence of a subsurface magma ocean in L 98-59 b extending up to $R_p\sim 60-90\%$. An SO$_2$-rich volcanic atmosphere on L 98-59 b would be indicative of an oxidized mantle with an oxygen fugacity of $f\rm{O}_2>IW+2.7$, and it would imply that L 98-59 b must have retained some of its volatile endowment despite its proximity to its star. Our findings suggest that volcanism may revive secondary atmospheres on tidally heated rocky planets around M-dwarfs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18680 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Raw spectroscopic lightcurves, as extracted with Eureka! and binned to ∆λ = 0.02 µm. The gray areas mark the separations between the data from the NRS1 and NRS2 detectors, as well as the integrations that were trimmed out of the NRS2 lightcurves of transits 2 and 4. Right: White lightcurves and best-fit models. We also show the lightcurve data points binned by a factor of 80 to more easily identify the small u… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The average Eureka! transmission spectrum of L 98-59 b from the four JWST NIRSpec/G395H transits compared against the 98% SO2 model predicted in Seligman et al. (2024) and a self-consistent photochemical model assuming an SO2 -dominated atmosphere. We also show the best-fit flat line and atmosphere models retrieved with Aurora on the ∆λ = 0.01 µm data and the corresponding 2σ uncertainty bands. All models include an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Self-consistent models of an SO2 -dominated atmosphere on L 98-59 b. The figure shows the mixing ratio of key molecules (left) and the temperature (right) as a function of pressure, and the solid and dashed lines correspond to an internal heat flux of 1× and 10× the insolation, respectively, corresponding to a tidal Q value of 30 and 3. The atmosphere should build up abundant SO3 and gas-phase elemental sulfur (S8 )… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ExoTR retrieval results for L 98-59 b. Top: retrieved mean spectrum (mean model and 2σ confidence interval) from scenario 8 in Table A3. Bottom: Posterior distribution functions for selected gases. The posterior distribution functions suggest a heavy atmosphere rich in…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Aurora retrieval results for L 98-59 b. Top: The retrieved transmission spectrum on the Eureka! reduction of the L 98-59 b observa￾tions. The inference is performed on the ∆λ = 0.01 µm resolution observations, but the ∆λ = 0.04 µm data overplotted for visual clarity. T…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The model preference for a planet with an atmosphere over a flat line is consistent with regions of dominant SO2 absorp￾tion. The data is color coded by the point-wise difference in the expected log point-wise predictive density (elpd) between the sim￾ple atmospheric m…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Retrieved SO2 abundances for models using radiative￾convective equilibrium vertical temperature structures. The 1× and 10× insolation models infer SO2 abundances over 90% within their 68% confidence interval, favoring a SO2-rich atmosphere and dis￾favoring large CO2 ab…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: POSEIDON retrieval results for L 98-59 b. Top: retrieved transmission spectra (median model and 1σ confidence interval) for three models: a flat line (grey), stellar contamination (blue), and an SO2-rich planetary atmosphere (orange). The retrieval models shown corresp…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The existence of widespread volcanism on L 98-59 b — if caused by the runaway melting mechanism — provides constraints on the tidal quality factor and size of the subsurface magma ocean. Left: Tidal quality factor versus radius for solar system planets and satellites a…

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. Pyrat Bay 2.0: an Upgraded Framework for Exoplanet Atmosphere Modeling in the JWST Era

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pyrat Bay 2.0 adds equilibrium chemistry, radiative equilibrium, and vertically varying abundance retrieval, and simulations indicate JWST-quality spectra can recover such variations.

  2. Constraining Ongoing Volcanic Outgassing Rates and Interior Compositions of Extrasolar Planets with Mass Measurements of Plasma Tori

    astro-ph.EP 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A circumstellar plasma torus fed by exoplanet volcanism would imprint detectable atomic absorption lines, letting astronomers estimate volcanic outgassing rates.

  3. AGNI: A radiative-convective model for lava planet atmospheres

    astro-ph.IM 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AGNI is an open-source, energy-conserving radiative-convective model for lava planet atmospheres, built for coupling with interior evolution simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    E., Wakeford, H

    Alderson, L., Batalha, N. E., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad32c9

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad32c9 2024

  2. [2]

    Alexander, C. M. O., Wynn, J. G., Bowden, R., & Scott, E. 2022, M&PS, 57, 334, doi: 10.1111/maps.13746 20 B ELLO -A RUFE ET AL

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.13746 2022

  3. [3]

    C., Buchhave, L

    August, P. C., Buchhave, L. A., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.11048, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11048

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.11048 2024

  4. [4]

    Azzam, A. A. A., Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., & Naumenko, O. V . 2016, MNRAS, 460, 4063, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1133

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1133 2016

  5. [5]

    K., Gressier, A., et al

    Banerjee, A., Barstow, J. K., Gressier, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15707

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.15707 2024

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    J., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al

    Bell, T. J., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 709, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06687-0

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06687-0 2023

  8. [8]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100

    Benneke, B., & Seager, S. 2012, ApJ, 753, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/100 2012

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    2013, Icarus, 223, 308, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.020

    Beuthe, M. 2013, Icarus, 223, 308, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.020

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    I., & Smith, A

    Billmers, R. I., & Smith, A. L. 1991, The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 95, 4242

    1991

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    2003, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 157, 167

    Bogumil, K., Orphal, J., Homann, T., et al. 2003, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 157, 167

    2003

  5. [13]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    B., & McKeen, S

    Burkholder, J. B., & McKeen, S. 1997, Geophysical research letters, 24, 3201

    1997

  7. [15]

    2019, A&A, 629, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935957

    Cloutier, R., Astudillo-Defru, N., Bonfils, X., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935957

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, ApJL, 968, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204

    Damiano, M., Bello-Arufe, A., Yang, J., & Hu, R. 2024, ApJL, 968, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    2020, AJ, 159, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab79a5 —

    Damiano, M., & Hu, R. 2020, AJ, 159, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab79a5 —. 2021, AJ, 162, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac224d —. 2022, AJ, 163, 299, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6b97

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, AJ, 164, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9472 de Wit, J., Lewis, N

    Damiano, M., Hu, R., Barclay, T., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 225, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9472 de Wit, J., Lewis, N. K., Langton, J., et al. 2016, ApJL, 820, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/2/L33

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Demangeon, O. D. S., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Alibert, Y ., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140728

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02428-z

    Ducrot, E., Lagage, P.-O., Min, M., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02428-z

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    G., & Guinan, E

    Engle, S. G., & Guinan, E. F. 2023, ApJL, 954, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf472

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  15. [23]

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

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

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    F., Ahlers, J

    Fromont, E. F., Ahlers, J. P., do Amaral, L. N. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0e0e

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2022, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 577, 117255, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117255

    Gaillard, F., Bernadou, F., Roskosz, M., et al. 2022, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 577, 117255, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117255

    2022

  18. [26]

    J., Lichtenberg, T., Boukrouche, R., & Pierrehumbert, R

    Graham, R. J., Lichtenberg, T., Boukrouche, R., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2021, PSJ, 2, 207, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac214c

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Grant, D., & Wakeford, H. R. 2022, Exo-TiC/ExoTiC-LD: ExoTiC-LD v3.0.0, v3.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7437681

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    H., et al

    Gressier, A., Espinoza, N., Allen, N. H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15855, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15855

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    L., Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., et al

    Grimm, S. L., Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 253, 30

    2021

  23. [31]

    Heng, K., & Marley, M. S. 2018, Radiative Transfer for Exoplanet Atmospheres (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 2137–2152, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7 102

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    E., Kjaergaard, H

    Hintze, P. E., Kjaergaard, H. G., Vaida, V ., & Burkholder, J. B. 2003, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 107, 1112

    2003

  25. [33]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 166 —

    Hu, R. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 166 —. 2021, ApJ, 921, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1789

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 166 —

    Hu, R., Seager, S., & Bains, W. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 166 —. 2013a, The Astrophysical Journal, 769, 6 —. 2013b, ApJ, 769, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/6

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, Nature, 630, 609, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x

    Hu, R., Bello-Arufe, A., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 609, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07432-x

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    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

  29. [37]

    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

  30. [38]

    G., & Sasselov, D

    Kaltenegger, L., Henning, W. G., & Sasselov, D. D. 2010, AJ, 140, 1370, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1370

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    E., van der Avoird, A., et al

    Karman, T., Gordon, I. E., van der Avoird, A., et al. 2019, Icarus, 328, 160, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.02.034

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    T., Matsuyama, I., Bierson, C

    Keane, J. T., Matsuyama, I., Bierson, C. J., & Trinh, A. 2023, Tidal Heating and the Interior Structure of Io, ed. R. M. C. Lopes, K. de Kleer, & J. Tuttle Keane (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 95–146, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-25670-7 4

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1435

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    S., & Barnett, M

    Kite, E. S., & Barnett, M. N. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 18264, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2006177117

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

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

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

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    2009, Nature, 459, 957, doi: 10.1038/nature08108

    Lainey, V ., Arlot, J.-E., Karatekin,¨O., & van Hoolst, T. 2009, Nature, 459, 957, doi: 10.1038/nature08108

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    2009, Nature, 457, 562, doi: 10.1038/nature07649 A VOLCANIC ATMOSPHERE ON L 98-59 B 21

    Laughlin, G., Deming, D., Langton, J., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 562, doi: 10.1038/nature07649 A VOLCANIC ATMOSPHERE ON L 98-59 B 21

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    B., & Shorttle, O

    Liggins, P., Jordan, S., Rimmer, P. B., & Shorttle, O. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 127, e07123, doi: 10.1029/2021JE007123

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    Lopes, R. M. C., & Spencer, J. R. 2007, Io After Galileo: A New View of Jupiter’s V olcanic Moon, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-48841-5

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    Loyd, R. O. P., France, K., Youngblood, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/102

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

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

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

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    MacDonald, R. J. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4873, doi: 10.21105/joss.04873

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    J., & Madhusudhan, N

    MacDonald, R. J., & Madhusudhan, N. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx804

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    2023, ApJL, 956, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

    Madhusudhan, N., Sarkar, S., Constantinou, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24

    Madhusudhan, N., & Seager, S. 2009, ApJ, 707, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    2015, A&A, 573, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423804

    Magic, Z., Chiavassa, A., Collet, R., & Asplund, M. 2015, A&A, 573, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423804

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    M., MacDonald, R

    May, E. M., MacDonald, R. J., Bennett, K. A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.10711. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.10711

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 259, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3532

    McGill, P., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 259, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3532

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Synnott, S

    Morabito, L. A., Synnott, S. P., Kupferman, P. N., & Collins, S. A. 1979, Science, 204, 972, doi: 10.1126/science.204.4396.972

    1979 doi

  51. [59]

    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

  52. [60]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar system dynamics

    1999

  53. [61]

    M., Guzewich, S

    Ostberg, C. M., Guzewich, S. D., Kane, S. R., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acfe12

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    V ., Johnson, R

    Oza, A. V ., Johnson, R. E., Lellouch, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40cc

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    J., & Cassen, P

    Peale, S. J., & Cassen, P. 1978, Icarus, 36, 245, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(78)90109-4

    1978 doi

  56. [64]

    J., Cassen, P., & Reynolds, R

    Peale, S. J., Cassen, P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1979, Science, 203, 892, doi: 10.1126/science.203.4383.892

    1979 doi

  57. [65]

    E., Schwieterman, E

    Pidhorodetska, D., Moran, S. E., Schwieterman, E. W., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1171

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    V ., Madhusudhan, N., & Apai, D

    Pinhas, A., Rackham, B. V ., Madhusudhan, N., & Apai, D. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5314, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2209

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    L., Kyuberis, A

    Polyansky, O. L., Kyuberis, A. A., Zobov, N. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1877

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    C., Roberge, A., Mlinar, A

    Quick, L. C., Roberge, A., Mlinar, A. B., & Hedman, M. M. 2020, PASP, 132, 084402, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab9504

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa4f6c

    Rackham, B., Espinoza, N., Apai, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa4f6c

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    M., Barrag´an, O., & Zicher, N

    Rajpaul, V . M., Barrag´an, O., & Zicher, N. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae778

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    E., Rothman, L

    Richard, C., Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., et al. 2012, JQSRT, 113, 1276, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2011.11.004

    2012 doi

  64. [72]

    2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    S., Gordon, I

    Rothman, L. S., Gordon, I. E., Barber, R. J., et al. 2010, JQSRT, 111, 2139, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2010.05.001

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    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

  67. [75]

    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

  68. [76]

    R., et al

    Scarsdale, N., Wogan, N., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 276, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad73cf

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    Z., Feinstein, A

    Seligman, D. Z., Feinstein, A. D., Lai, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b82

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    A., Soderblom, L

    Smith, B. A., Soderblom, L. A., Johnson, T. V ., et al. 1979, Science, 204, 951, doi: 10.1126/science.204.4396.951

    1979 doi

  71. [79]

    G., Terrile, R

    Strom, R. G., Terrile, R. J., Masursky, H., & Hansen, C. 1979, Nature, 280, 733, doi: 10.1038/280733a0

    1979 doi

  72. [80]

    A., & Perevalov, V

    Tashkun, S. A., & Perevalov, V . I. 2011, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 112, 1403, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2011.03.005

    2011 doi

  73. [81]

    N., Al-Refaie, A

    Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., Al-Refaie, A. F., et al. 2016, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 327, 73, doi: 10.1016/j.jms.2016.05.002

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

    2019, A&A, 630, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935297

    Tobie, G., Grasset, O., Dumoulin, C., & Mocquet, A. 2019, A&A, 630, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935297

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4602, doi: 10.21105/joss.04602

    Townsend, R., & Lopez, A. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4602, doi: 10.21105/joss.04602

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

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

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

    2008 doi

  77. [85]

    1982, Reviews of Geophysics, 20, 233

    Turco, R., Whitten, R., & Toon, O. 1982, Reviews of Geophysics, 20, 233

    1982

  78. [86]

    S., Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S

    Underwood, D. S., Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3890, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw849 van Dokkum, P. G. 2001, PASP, 113, 1420, doi: 10.1086/323894

    2016 doi

  79. [87]

    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

  80. [88]

    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, ApJL, 975, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8161

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    2019, AJ, 157, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab14de —

    Welbanks, L., & Madhusudhan, N. 2019, AJ, 157, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab14de —. 2021, ApJ, 913, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abee94 —. 2022, ApJ, 933, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6df1

    2019 doi

  82. [90]

    2023, AJ, 165, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acab67 22 B ELLO -A RUFE ET AL

    Welbanks, L., McGill, P., Line, M., & Madhusudhan, N. 2023, AJ, 165, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acab67 22 B ELLO -A RUFE ET AL

    2023 doi

  83. [91]

    J., Beatty, T

    Welbanks, L., Bell, T. J., Beatty, T. G., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 836, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07514-w

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    2015, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 15, 1843

    Whitehill, A., Jiang, B., Guo, H., & Ono, S. 2015, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 15, 1843

    2015

  85. [93]

    F., Batalha, N

    Wogan, N. F., Batalha, N. E., Zahnle, K. J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 963, L7

    2024

  86. [94]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35c8

    Yang, J., & Hu, R. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35c8

    2024 doi

  87. [95]

    N., Amundsen, D

    Yurchenko, S. N., Amundsen, D. S., Tennyson, J., & Waldmann, I. P. 2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 605, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731026

    2017 doi

  88. [96]

    J., & Catling, D

    Zahnle, K. J., & Catling, D. C. 2017, ApJ, 843, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7846

    2017 doi

  89. [97]

    2024, ApJL, 961, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1a07

    Zhang, M., Hu, R., Inglis, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1a07

    2024 doi

  90. [98]

    2022, AJ, 164, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8fe9

    Zhou, L., Ma, B., Wang, Y ., & Zhu, Y . 2022, AJ, 164, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8fe9

    2022 doi

  91. [99]

    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 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.