Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 124 references

JWST NIRISS Transmission Spectroscopy of the Super-Earth GJ 357b, a Favourable Target for Atmospheric Retention

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST's first transmission spectrum of the super-Earth GJ 357b is flat, ruling out hydrogen-rich atmospheres at 3σ and leaving a bare rock, a heavy atmosphere, or high clouds in play.

desk verdict A useful new flat-spectrum data point, but the paper's headline 3-sigma rejection of low-metallicity atmospheres is inflated by a factor-of-two error in the chi2 standard deviation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24462 v1 pith:6HKUJMSN submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Jake Taylor , Michael Radica , Richard D. Chatterjee , Mark Hammond , Tobias Meier , Suzanne Aigrain , Ryan J. MacDonald , Loic Albert
show 13 more authors
Björn Benneke Louis-Philippe Coulombe Nicolas B. Cowan Lisa Dang René Doyon Laura Flagg Doug Johnstone Lisa Kaltenegger David Lafrenière Stefan Pelletier Caroline Piaulet-Ghorayeb Jason F. Rowe Pierre-Alexis Roy
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords transmissionspectroscopyexoplanetatmospheressuper-EarthGJ357bJWSTNIRISS/SOSSatmosphericescapesecondaryatmosphereM-dwarfactivity
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 the first atmospheric observation of GJ 357b, a $1.84\,M_\oplus$ super-Earth on a 3.93-day orbit around a quiet, low-mass M-type star, taken with JWST's NIRISS/SOSS spectrograph on a single transit night that captured only about 60% of the transit because it was scheduled with an outdated ephemeris. Despite the partial coverage, the recovered $0.85$–$2.85\,\mu$m spectrum is flat at a precision of roughly 40 parts per million near $1.4\,\mu$m: a search for Gaussian absorption features finds no model preferred over a plain flat line, and stellar contamination from spots or faculae is not required to explain the data. Comparing the spectrum with a grid of atmospheric models, the paper excludes at $3\sigma$ confidence any light, hydrogen-rich atmosphere (metallicity below about 100 times solar) whose cloud tops sit at pressures of 0.01 bar or greater, so the planet could still be a bare rock, carry a heavy (high-mean-molecular-weight) atmosphere, or hide its gases behind high, thin clouds. The paper then argues that GJ 357b is one of the more promising places to search next: its higher escape velocity and the host star's exceptional inactivity make it plausible that a volcanic, several-bar CO₂ atmosphere has been retained to the present day. It closes with quantitative forecasts — two MIRI eclipses could reveal atmospheric or surface emission, and three to four NIRSpec transits could detect the $4.3\,\mu$m CO₂ band of a 1-bar nitrogen atmosphere with 1000 ppm of CO₂.

What carries the argument

Three pieces of machinery carry the argument. The dataset is a box-extracted NIRISS/SOSS time series rebinned to constant resolution $R=50$, with each of 60 wavelength bins fit by a transit-plus-systematics model whose orbital parameters are held at the white-light-curve values and whose mid-transit time is anchored by a Gaussian prior from the updated ephemeris; cutting the integrations most affected by correlated noise does not change the resulting spectrum. The flatness tests are Bayesian model comparisons — a flat line against Gaussian features at free or fixed band positions, and a four-configuration transit-light-source grid — decided by Bayes factors, none of which beats the flat line. The exclusion map comes from a grid of CHIMERA forward models spanning metallicity $1$–$1000\times$ solar and cloud-top pressure $10$ to $10^{-4}$ bar, with equilibrium chemistry, an isothermal 525 K profile, solar C/O, and a fixed opacity set (H₂O, CO₂, CO, CH₄, HCN, NH₃, plus H₂–H₂ and H₂–He collision-induced absorption); each model is fit with one free offset and rejected at significance $\sigma = (\chi^2 - \mathrm{DOF})/\sqrt{2\,\mathrm{DOF}}$. The retention argument rests on the MORS rotational-evolution model of stellar XUV emission, which locates when GJ 357's ionizing luminosity falls below the threshold for rapid hydrodynamic escape adopted from a recent escape model, combined with published volcanic outgassing and stellar-wind erosion rates; the detectability forecasts run on PandExo instrument-noise simulations for MIRI and NIRSpec.

What would settle it

Re-observe a full transit with the corrected ephemeris: if the recovered spectrum reproduces the same flat shape at the roughly 25% better precision a complete transit would provide, the flatness claim is confirmed; if wavelength-dependent structure appears that the partial coverage hid, the flatness claim fails. Independently, stack four NIRSpec/G395H transits and look for the 4.3 µm CO₂ band — the paper predicts a better-than-3σ detection for a 1-bar nitrogen atmosphere with 1000 ppm CO₂, so a clean non-detection at that depth would falsify that specific retained-atmosphere scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's finding is that the first JWST transmission spectrum of GJ 357b — 60 wavelength bins from 0.85 to 2.85 µm at resolution $R \approx 50$, with transit depths precise to about 40 ppm near 1.4 µm — contains no statistically significant spectral features. The flat-line model is marginally favored over every Gaussian-feature model tested, including Gaussians anchored to the known water, methane, and CO₂ band positions, and the four transit-light-source models of spotted or facular stellar contamination are not favored either. Against a grid of isothermal (525 K) atmospheres with a solar carbon-to-oxygen ratio, computed with the CHIMERA forward model, the paper rejects at $3\sigma$ every model with metallicity below about 100 times solar (mean molecular weight near 4 g/mol) and cloud-top pressures from 0.01 bar up to the grid limit of 10 bar; models at 250 times solar metallicity or above, and models whose cloud tops sit at pressures below 0.01 bar (thin high clouds), fit the data just as well as a bare rock and cannot be told apart. The paper further argues that atmospheric retention is plausible for this particular planet: its 1.84-Earth-mass escape velocity and a host star whose measured X-ray luminosity is more than an order of magnitude below the lowest-activity evolutionary track for a star of its mass mean the ionizing flux drops below the threshold for rapid escape of a heavy atmosphere within about a gigayear, so volcanic outgassing at roughly 10 bar/Gyr could have rebuilt a several-bar CO₂ atmosphere that survives today. Finally, it predicts this scenario is testable: two MIRI/LRS or MIRI-photometry eclipses should detect emission departing from a zero-albedo blackbody if an atmosphere or reflective surface is present, and three to four NIRSpec/G395H transits should reveal the 4.3 µm CO₂ band of a 1-bar N₂ atmosphere carrying 1000 ppm of CO₂ at better than $3\sigma$.

Load-bearing premise

The 3σ exclusion boundary assumes each model atmosphere has a uniform temperature at all heights (525 K), a solar carbon-to-oxygen ratio, and absorbs only through a fixed set of molecules (water, CO₂, CO, methane, HCN, ammonia, and hydrogen–helium collisions), so a real atmosphere that departs from any of these — a temperature gradient, a different carbon-to-oxygen mix, or an extra absorber — could produce a flat spectrum that slips past the exclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the flat spectrum is real, GJ 357b cannot host a light, hydrogen-rich atmosphere with metallicity below about 100 times solar whose cloud tops press down to 0.01 bar or deeper; such envelopes are excluded at $3\sigma$.
  • The surviving explanations — a bare rock, an atmosphere at roughly 250 times solar metallicity or heavier, or an atmosphere with very high, thin clouds (tops below 0.01 bar pressure) — all fit the data equally well, so this observation alone does not decide whether the planet is airless.
  • GJ 357b becomes a priority target for atmospheric-retention studies: at $1.84\,M_\oplus$ with a star whose ionizing luminosity is more than an order of magnitude below the lowest-activity evolutionary track, the flux driving escape falls below the rapid-escape threshold within about a gigayear.
  • If volcanic outgassing near 10 bar/Gyr has outpaced stellar-wind erosion at well under 0.1 bar/Myr on the main sequence, a several-bar CO₂ atmosphere could exist today, and the flat transmission spectrum is fully consistent with that scenario.
  • The paper's detectability forecasts are specific: two MIRI/LRS or MIRI-photometry eclipses should detect emission departing from a zero-albedo blackbody, and three to four stacked NIRSpec/G395H transits should reveal the 4.3 µm CO₂ band of a 1-bar N₂ + 1000 ppm CO₂ atmosphere at better than $3\sigma$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A single full-transit NIRISS/SOSS observation, scheduled with the corrected ephemeris, would test the flatness claim directly: the paper estimates a full transit would bring roughly a quarter better precision, enough to either push the 3σ exclusion boundary toward higher metallicities or reveal structure hidden in the current bin-to-bin scatter.
  • If a future MIRI or NIRSpec program detects a CO₂ atmosphere, it would be the first direct evidence that secondary atmospheres can be volcanically revived after primordial envelopes are lost, tying retention to stellar activity history rather than to incident flux alone — a prediction that could generalize to other quiet mid-M-dwarf super-Earths.
  • The observed band (0.85–2.85 µm) is largely blind to the signatures the paper argues are most plausible: CO₂'s strongest band sits at 4.3 µm and surface mineral features beyond 3 µm, so the observations most likely to decide between bare rock and atmosphere are the MIRI emission measurements and NIRSpec/G395H transmission that the paper simulates, rather than more NIRISS time.
  • The long-wavelength end of the spectrum ($\gtrsim 2.6\,\mu$m) carries noticeably larger uncertainties, and the 2.803 µm bin sits about 1.9σ above the mean transit depth; a re-observation would determine whether that is a real feature or residual correlated noise from the partial transit.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first JWST NIRISS/SOSS transmission spectrum of the super-Earth GJ 357 b, obtained from a single transit that missed the first ~40% of ingress because an outdated ephemeris was used. The recovered spectrum shows no clear atmospheric features: a Gaussian feature search does not beat a flat line in Bayesian evidence, and transit-light-source (TLS) contamination is not detected. The authors compare the spectrum to a CHIMERA grid of isothermal, solar-C/O atmospheres as a function of metallicity and cloud-top pressure and claim a 3-sigma rejection of low-metallicity (≲100x solar) atmospheres with clouds down to 0.01 bar. They also model the bulk interior as Earth-like, argue that GJ 357 b is a favorable candidate for a volcanically revived secondary atmosphere because of the host star's exceptionally low activity, and simulate future MIRI/LRS, MIRI photometry, and NIRSpec/G395H observations that could detect such an atmosphere.

Significance. If the quantitative rejection claim were correct, this would be a useful addition to the growing JWST sample of featureless rocky-planet transmission spectra, with a plausible retention scenario for a specific M-dwarf super-Earth. The flat-spectrum non-detection itself is well supported: the Bayesian evidence comparison, the TLS modeling, and the robustness check against cutting noisy integrations are all clearly presented and do not depend on the contested chi-squared statistic. The future-observation feasibility study is also valuable for planning. However, the headline 3-sigma exclusion of low-metallicity atmospheres is currently not supported by the paper's own numbers, so the central quantitative claim needs correction before the result can be taken at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (3)] The claimed 3-sigma rejection is inconsistent with the paper's own statistics. The text states 60 data points, DOF=59, and a reduced chi-squared of 1.34 for the 100x-solar, 0.1-bar cloud model. The corresponding total chi-squared is 1.34 x 59 = 79.1, so Eq. (3) gives (79.1 - 59)/sqrt(118) = 1.85, not >3. Equivalently, the standard deviation of the reduced chi-squared distribution is sqrt(2/59) = 0.184, not 0.092 as quoted; the text appears to take the standard deviation as 1/sqrt(Var(chi2)) rather than the standard deviation of the reduced chi-squared. Thus the 100x-solar model is only about 1.85 sigma from a good fit, and the 3-sigma contour in the right panel of Fig. 3, as well as the abstract and Section 6 statements about rejecting atmospheres at 3-sigma, are not supported by the quoted numbers. Please recompute the rejection contour with the correct statistic (or a proper chi-squared CDF) and revise the claims accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Appendix A] Even after correcting the significance calculation, the rejection boundary is conditional on the CHIMERA model grid: an isothermal pressure-temperature profile at 525 K, solar C/O, and a restricted opacity set (H2O, CO2, CO, CH4, HCN, NH3, and CIA). The Appendix A retrieval reports that C/O is unconstrained, and the paper does not test non-isothermal structures or additional opacity sources. The abstract and conclusions state the rejection as a property of atmospheres in general ('atmospheres with metallicities ≲100x solar with clouds down to 0.01 bar'), but it is a property of this specific grid. Please qualify the claim explicitly, e.g., 'for the assumed isothermal, solar-C/O grid, the data are inconsistent with ... at X sigma', and report the corrected significance in the abstract.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2] The decision to impose a Gaussian prior on T0 from the Oddo et al. (2023) ephemeris after finding a 12-sigma discrepancy in the free fit means the quoted transit parameters are partly prior-driven; the robustness test cutting the problematic post-transit integrations and the Fig. B1 comparison are reassuring, but this should be stated even more explicitly as a caveat on the absolute transit depths.
  2. [Section 3.1] The text calls ln(Z1) - ln(Z2) the 'Bayes factor' and then says it is smaller than 1; this is a log-Bayes factor, and the threshold of 1 applies to the evidence ratio, not the log difference. The wording should be clarified.
  3. [Data Availability] The data availability statement says 'available upon request' even though the acknowledgments give a MAST DOI; please move the DOI or repository link into the Data Availability section for full reproducibility.
  4. [Equation (3)] The typeset form of Eq. (3) is ambiguous in the preprint; please render it as \(\sigma = (\chi^2 - \mathrm{DOF})/\sqrt{2\,\mathrm{DOF}}\) and state explicitly whether chi-squared is the total or reduced value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flat-spectrum finding and the model-grid rejection are self-contained analyses, and the retention argument's co-authored Chatterjee & Pierrehumbert (2024) escape threshold is an external, non-fitted model rather than a circular input.

full rationale

This paper's derivation chain is essentially self-contained. The central flat-spectrum claim (Section 3.1) is a Bayesian model comparison between a Gaussian feature model and a flat line, with quoted evidences (ln Z = -28.20 +/- 0.04 vs -27.95 +/- 0.04) computed from the observed spectrum under stated priors, so it does not reduce to any fitted input or prior result. The 3-sigma rejection of low-metallicity atmospheres (Section 3.3) is a chi-square comparison against a precomputed CHIMERA grid with explicitly stated assumptions (isothermal T at 525 K, solar C/O, seven opacity species), where the only fitted parameter is a vertical offset; the grid is not trained on the GJ 357b data, so the rejection boundary is model-dependent rather than circular. The atmospheric-retention argument (Section 4) relies on Chatterjee & Pierrehumbert (2024), a paper co-authored by this paper's author R. D. Chatterjee; that threshold model is externally derived, parameter-free with respect to the GJ 357b data, and not fitted here, so it counts as independent support rather than a circular self-citation. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation. The Section 5 observability forecasts are forward PandExo simulations based on assumed model atmospheres, again not derived from the data. One separate correctness risk, not a circularity, is that the paper's own Eq. (3) with its quoted reduced chi2 = 1.34 and DOF = 59 yields sigma = 1.85, not >3, because the stated reduced-chi2 standard deviation (0.092) is a factor-of-2 underestimate of the correct sqrt(2/59) = 0.184; this weakens the abstract's 3-sigma wording but does not constitute a circular reduction. The score of 2 reflects the presence of self-citations adjacent to the retention conclusion, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central non-detection depends on standard data reduction and light curve fitting. The rejection boundary depends on the atmospheric model grid assumptions. The retention argument depends on external evolutionary and escape models. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Limb darkening coefficients q1, q2 = Varied per wavelength bin, priors centered on ExoTiC-LD predictions with width 0.2
    Fitted in each spectroscopic bin to produce transit depths; the Gaussian prior width is chosen by hand (Section 2.2).
  • Systematics model coefficients = Zero point, two linear trends, two PCA components, and an error inflation term
    Used to detrend the light curves; these are fitted per bin and for the white light curve, and they affect the final transit depths.
  • Forward model offset = One per model in the grid
    Each CHIMERA model is vertically offset to fit the data when computing chi2 and rejection sigma (Section 3.3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Atmospheric model grid assumes an isothermal temperature-pressure profile at T = 525 K and solar C/O
    The CHIMERA grid fixes T-P and C/O; deviations could change spectral feature amplitudes and the derived rejection boundary (Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption Opacity set is limited to H2O, CO2, CO, CH4, HCN, NH3, and H2-H2/H2-He collision-induced absorption
    Missing opacity sources or haze could mask or mimic features, affecting the flat-spectrum interpretation (Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption Escape threshold for secondary atmospheres is taken from Chatterjee and Pierrehumbert (2024), co-authored by this paper's author
    The retention argument's conclusion that GJ 357b can accumulate CO2 depends on this threshold and its application to this planet (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption MORS low-activity track represents the XUV evolution of GJ 357
    Used to estimate when XUV drops below the escape threshold; the measured X-ray luminosity is much lower than the track, so the age and threshold conclusions are uncertain (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Outgassing rate of approximately 10 bar/Gyr from Dorn et al. (2018) applies to GJ 357b
    Used to argue that volcanic supply exceeds escape loss; the paper notes sensitivity to mantle properties (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption Stellar wind erosion rate scales from TRAPPIST-1 simulations
    The inferred atmospheric erosion rate below 0.1 bar/Myr depends on wind flux scaling from Dong et al. (2018) and the semi-major axis ratio (Section 4.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST NIRISS Transmission Spectroscopy of the Super-Earth GJ 357b, a Favourable Target for Atmospheric Retention." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HKUJMSN

@misc{pith2026250524462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST NIRISS Transmission Spectroscopy of the Super-Earth GJ 357b, a Favourable Target for Atmospheric Retention},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HKUJMSN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24462}
}
abstract

We present a JWST NIRISS/SOSS transmission spectrum of the super-Earth GJ 357 b: the first atmospheric observation of this exoplanet. Despite missing the first $\sim$40 % of the transit due to using an out-of-date ephemeris, we still recover a transmission spectrum that does not display any clear signs of atmospheric features. We perform a search for Gaussian-shaped absorption features within the data but find that this analysis yields comparable fits to the observations as a flat line. We compare the transmission spectrum to a grid of atmosphere models and reject, to 3-$\sigma$ confidence, atmospheres with metallicities $\lesssim$100$\times$ solar ($\sim$4 g/mol) with clouds at pressures down to 0.01 bar. We analyse how the retention of a secondary atmosphere on GJ 357 b may be possible due to its higher escape velocity compared to an Earth-sized planet and the exceptional inactivity of its host star relative to other M2.5V stars. The star's XUV luminosity decays below the threshold for rapid atmospheric escape early enough that the volcanic revival of an atmosphere of several bars of CO$_2$ is plausible, though subject to considerable uncertainty. Finally, we model the feasibility of detecting an atmosphere on GJ 357 b with MIRI/LRS, MIRI photometry, and NIRSpec/G395H. We find that, with two eclipses, it would be possible to detect features indicative of an atmosphere or surface. Further to this, with 3-4 transits, it would be possible to detect a 1 bar nitrogen-rich atmosphere with 1000 ppm of CO$_2$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GJ 357 b NIRISS white light curve fit results. Top panel: Raw GJ 357 b order 1 white light curve, with the best-fitting astrophysical transit + systematics model overplotted in black. The first ∼40% of the transit was missed by our observation. Integrations from ∼0.8 – 1.5 hr post-transit mid-point (shown as faded) were excluded from the fit due to uncorrectable systematics. Second panel: Systematics corrected white… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: Best fitting Gaussian model. Middle panel: flat line model. Bottom panel: Best fitting TLS model. We present the median, 1-𝜎, and 3-𝜎 contours in purple for the Gaussian model and 1-𝜎, and 2-𝜎 contours for the flat line and TLS models. It can be seen there is some non-flat structure detected within the 3-𝜎 contour of the Gaussian model, however, this model is not favoured over the flat line or TLS model. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Transmission spectrum of GJ 357 b with four atmospheric models overplotted. The reduced 𝜒 2 for each model is quoted in the legend. We show two models from our grid analysis: 100× and 250× solar metallicity. Each model has an opaque cloud layer at 0.1 bar, we assume this to be analogous to the tropopause of solar system objects (Robinson & Catling 2014). We also show two nitrogen rich models that would be dist… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Models of the evolution of the luminosity of GJ 357 in the X-ray and EUV bands. The XMM-Newton measurement of the X-luminosity (grey dia￾mond) with the estimated age of 5 Gyrs are taken from Modirrousta-Galian et al. (2020). The XUV luminosity (black diamond) is estima…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Modelled MIRI LRS and photometric filter emission spectra for GJ 357 b, for simulated surfaces and atmospheres following the methodology of Hammond et al. (2024). Left panel: two bare-rock surfaces, with modelled MIRI/LRS (circles) and MIRI filter (squares) emission fo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The ability to detect a N2-dominated atmosphere with varying levels of CO2 using NIRSpec/G395H. Left: We present the detection significance, based on fitting a Gaussian to the 4.3 µm CO2 feature, as a function of the number of stacked transits. In purple we show the re…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    K., et al., 2024, JWST COMPASS : The first near- to mid-infrared transmission spectrum of the hot super- Earth L 168-9 b, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241103154A

    Alam M. K., et al., 2024, JWST COMPASS : The first near- to mid-infrared transmission spectrum of the hot super- Earth L 168-9 b, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241103154A

    2024

  3. [3]

    Albert L., et al., 2023, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3 , 135, 075001

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3 2023

  4. [4]

    Alderson L., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad32c9 , 167, 216

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad32c9 2024

  5. [5]

    Alderson L., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/adad64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169..142A 169, 142

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adad64 2025

  6. [6]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , 47, 481

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , 47, 481

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Banerjee A., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad73d0 , 975, L11

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad73d0 2024

  8. [8]

    J., Strange J

    Barber R. J., Strange J. K., Hill C., Polyansky O. L., Mellau G. C., Yurchenko S. N., Tennyson J., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt2011 , 437, 1828

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2011 2014

Show all 124 references
  1. [9]

    E., et al., 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 064501

    Batalha N. E., et al., 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 064501

    2017

  2. [10]

    Benneke B., et al., 2024, JWST Reveals CH \ \_4\ , CO \ \_2\ , and H \ \_2\ O in a Metal -rich Miscible Atmosphere on a Two - Earth - Radius Exoplanet , http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.03325

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Boro Saikia S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A.108B 616, A108

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Buchner J., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 , 564, A125

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Cadieux C., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5afa , 970, L2

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    C., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...372..646C 372, 646

    Canto J., Raga A. C., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...372..646C 372, 646

    1991 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Pierrehumbert R

    Chatterjee R. D., Pierrehumbert R. T., 2024, Novel Physics of Escaping Secondary Atmospheres May Shape the Cosmic Shoreline ( @eprint arXiv 2412.05188 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.05188

    2024

  8. [16]

    Cloutier R., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731558 , 608, A35

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Cloutier R., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833995 , 621, A49

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Drake J

    Cohen O., Glocer A., Garraffo C., Alvarado-Gómez J. D., Drake J. J., Monsch K., Puigdomenech F. F., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad206a , 962, 157

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Yurchenko S

    Coles P. A., Yurchenko S. N., Tennyson J., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2778 , 490, 4638

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Coulombe L.-P., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-023-06230-1 , 620, 292

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    arXiv:2501.14016

    Coulombe L.-P., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250114016C p. arXiv:2501.14016

    2025 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Damiano M., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9472 , 164, 225

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Darveau-Bernier A., et al., 2022, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac8a77 , 134, 094502

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Diamond-Lowe H., et al., 2024, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450107 , 689, A48

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Ma Y., van der Holst B., 2018, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] 10.1073/pnas.1708010115 , 115, 260

    Dong C., Jin M., Lingam M., Airapetian V. S., Ma Y., van der Holst B., 2018, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] 10.1073/pnas.1708010115 , 115, 260

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Dorn C., Venturini J., Khan A., Heng K., Alibert Y., Helled R., Rivoldini A., Benz W., 2017a, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628708 , 597, A37

    doi

  19. [27]

    R., Venturini J., 2017b, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628749 , 597, A38

    Dorn C., Hinkel N. R., Venturini J., 2017b, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628749 , 597, A38

    doi

  20. [28]

    Rozel, A

    Dorn C., Noack, L. Rozel, A. B. 2018, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731513 , 614, A18

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Doyon R., et al., 2023, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/acd41b , 135, 098001

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Charbonneau D., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/45 , 807, 45

    Dressing C. D., Charbonneau D., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/45 , 807, 45

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    G., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0840 , 960, 62

    Engle S. G., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0840 , 960, 62

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Espinoza N., Kossakowski D., Brahm R., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2688 , 490, 2262

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    D., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-022-05674-1 , 614, 670

    Feinstein A. D., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-022-05674-1 , 614, 670

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Foreman-Mackey D., Agol E., Ambikasaran S., Angus R., 2017, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 , 154, 220

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    Fournier-Tondreau M., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3813 , 528, 3354

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    France K., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/abb465 , 160, 237

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    S., Lustig-Yaeger J., Fortney J

    Freedman R. S., Lustig-Yaeger J., Fortney J. J., Lupu R. E., Marley M. S., Lodders K., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/25 , 214, 25

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Moran S

    Garcia L. J., Moran S. E., Rackham B. V., Wakeford H. R., Gillon M., de Wit J., Lewis N. K., 2022, arXiv:2203.13698 [astro-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Gillon M., et al., 2016, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature17448 , 533, 221

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Gillon M., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature21360 , 542, 456

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    R., 2024, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.06816 , 9, 6816

    Grant D., Wakeford H. R., 2024, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.06816 , 9, 6816

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Bell T

    Greene T. P., Bell T. J., Ducrot E., Dyrek A., Lagage P.-O., Fortney J. J., 2023, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7 , 618, 39

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Gregory P., 2005, Bayesian Logical Data Analysis for the Physical Sciences : A Comparative Approach with Mathematica ® Support , @doi 10.1017/CBO9780511791277 , https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/bayesian-logical-data-analysis-for-the-physical-sciences/09E9A95DAE275F5B005676...

    2005 doi

  36. [44]

    Gressier A., et al., 2024a, Hints of a sulfur-rich atmosphere around the 1.6 R \ \_\ oplus\ \ Super - Earth L98 -59 d from JWST NIRSpec G395H transmission spectroscopy, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15855 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.15855

    doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gressier A., et al., 2024b, JWST - TST DREAMS : A Super - Solar Metallicity in WASP -17 b Dayside Atmosphere from NIRISS SOSS Eclipse Spectroscopy , http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08149

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    M., Wang H., Seidler F., Sossi P., Mahajan A., Shorttle O., 2024, @doi [Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.15427 , 90, 259

    Guimond C. M., Wang H., Seidler F., Sossi P., Mahajan A., Shorttle O., 2024, @doi [Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.15427 , 90, 259

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    Hakim K., Rivoldini A., Van Hoolst T., Cottenier S., Jaeken J., Chust T., Steinle-Neumann G., 2018, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.005 , 313, 61

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Haldemann J., Dorn C., Venturini J., Alibert Y., Benz W., 2024, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346965 , 681, A96

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Hammond M., et al., 2024, Reliable Detections of Atmospheres on Rocky Exoplanets with Photometric JWST Phase Curves , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240904386H

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hirose K., Wood B., Vočadlo L., 2021, @doi [Nature Reviews Earth & Environment] 10.1038/s43017-021-00203-6 , 2, 645

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    Ho C. S. K., Rogers J. G., Van Eylen V., Owen J. E., Schlichting H. E., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1376 , 531, 3698

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    L., Seager S., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 752, 7

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

    2012

  45. [53]

    R., Steffen J

    Huang C., Rice D. R., Steffen J. H., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1133 , p. stac1133

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    W.-v., Dreizler S., Homeier D., Reiners A., Barman T., Hauschildt P

    Husser T.-O., Berg S. W.-v., Dreizler S., Homeier D., Reiners A., Barman T., Hauschildt P. H., 2013, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 , 553, A6

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    M.-R., Whittaker E

    Ih J., Kempton E. M.-R., Whittaker E. A., Lessard M., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace03b , 952, L4

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    JWST Transiting Exoplanet Community Early Release Science Team et al., 2023, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-022-05269-w , 614, 649

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Pozuelos F

    Jenkins J. S., Pozuelos F. J., Tuomi M., Berdiñas Z. M., Díaz M. R., Vines J. I., Suárez J. C., Peña Rojas P. A., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2937 , 490, 5585

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    D., Park Coy B., Kite E

    Ji X., Chatterjee R. D., Park Coy B., Kite E. S., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.19872 , p. arXiv:2504.19872

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    P., Bartel M., Güdel M., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038407 , 649, A96

    Johnstone C. P., Bartel M., Güdel M., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038407 , 649, A96

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    Kallinger T., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424313 , 570, A41

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    M., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1435 , 435, 2152

    Kipping D. M., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1435 , 435, 2152

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    Kirk J., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad19df , 167, 90

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    S., Barnett M

    Kite E. S., Barnett M. N., 2020, @doi [PNAS] 10.1073/pnas.2006177117/-/DCSupplemental

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    Koll D. D. B., Malik M., Mansfield M., Kempton E. M. R., Kite E., Abbot D., Bean J. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..140K 886, 140

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    Kreidberg L., 2015, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/683602 , 127, 1161

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    J., 2024, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-024-52642-6 , 15, 8374

    Krissansen-Totton J., Wogan N., Thompson M., Fortney J. J., 2024, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-024-52642-6 , 15, 8374

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    Lim O., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4 , 955, L22

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    P., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/acee02 , 955, L7

    Lincowski A. P., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/acee02 , 955, L7

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    R., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/137 , 775, 137

    Line M. R., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/137 , 775, 137

    2013 doi

  62. [70]

    Luger R., Lustig-Yaeger J., Agol E., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 851, 94

    2017

  63. [71]

    Luque R., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935801 , 628, A39

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    Lustig-Yaeger J., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z , 7, 1317

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    J., 2023, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.04873 , 8, 4873

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

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    Magic Z., Chiavassa A., Collet R., Asplund M., 2015, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423804 , 573, A90

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    S., Hu R., Koll D

    Mansfield M., Kite E. S., Hu R., Koll D. D. B., Malik M., Bean J. L., Kempton E. M. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..141M 886, 141

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    W., et al., 2024, No Thick Atmosphere on the Terrestrial Exoplanet Gl 486b, http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.15123

    Mansfield M. W., et al., 2024, No Thick Atmosphere on the Terrestrial Exoplanet Gl 486b, http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.15123

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    J., Reiners A., Anglada-Escud \'e G., Jeffers S

    Marvin C. J., Reiners A., Anglada-Escud \'e G., Jeffers S. V., Boro Saikia S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671A.162M 671, A162

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad054f , 959, L9

    May E. M., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad054f , 959, L9

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    Modirrousta-Galian D., Stelzer B., Magaudda E., Maldonado J., Güdel M., Sanz-Forcada J., Edwards B., Micela G., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038280 , 641, A113

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c , 948, L11

    Moran S. E., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c , 948, L11

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    Nakayama A., Ikoma M., Terada N., 2022, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca , 937, 72

    2022 doi

  74. [82]

    Oddo D., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/acb4e3 , 165, 134

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    N., 1958, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/146579 , 128

    Parker E. N., 1958, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/146579 , 128

    1958 doi

  76. [84]

    A., Espinoza N., 2022, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5f55 , 163, 228

    Patel J. A., Espinoza N., 2022, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5f55 , 163, 228

    2022 doi

  77. [85]

    Penz T., Micela G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078873 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...479..579P 479, 579

    2008 doi

  78. [86]

    Pereira F., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2405 , 489, 5764

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    Piaulet-Ghorayeb C., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f00 , 974, L10

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    L., Kyuberis A

    Polyansky O. L., Kyuberis A. A., Zobov N. F., Tennyson J., Yurchenko S. N., Lodi L., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1877 , 480, 2597

    2018 doi

  81. [89]

    L., Moutou C., Charbonneau D., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12852.x , 385, 109

    Pont F., Knutson H., Gilliland R. L., Moutou C., Charbonneau D., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12852.x , 385, 109

    2008

  82. [90]

    V., Apai D., Giampapa M

    Rackham B. V., Apai D., Giampapa M. S., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa08c , 853, 122

    2018 doi

  83. [91]

    V., Apai D., Giampapa M

    Rackham B. V., Apai D., Giampapa M. S., 2019, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf892 , 157, 96

    2019 doi

  84. [92]

    Radica M., 2024, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.06898 , 9, 6898

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    Radica M., et al., 2022a, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9430 , 134, 104502

    doi

  86. [94]

    Radica M., et al., 2022b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3024 , 517, 5050

    doi

  87. [95]

    Radica M., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1762 , 524, 835

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    Radica M., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad20e4 , 962, L20

    2024 doi

  89. [97]

    Radica M., et al., 2025, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ada381 , 979, L5

    2025 doi

  90. [98]

    Redfield S., et al., 2024, Report of the Working Group on Strategic Exoplanet Initiatives with HST and JWST , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02932 , http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.02932

    2024 doi arXiv

  91. [99]

    Richard C., et al., 2012, @doi [Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer] 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2011.11.004 , 113, 1276

    2012 doi

  92. [100]

    D., Catling D

    Robinson T. D., Catling D. C., 2014, @doi [Nature Geoscience] 10.1038/ngeo2020 , 7, 12

    2014 doi

  93. [101]

    A., Seager S., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/974 , 712, 974

    Rogers L. A., Seager S., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/974 , 712, 974

    2010 doi

  94. [102]

    G., Gupta A., Owen J

    Rogers J. G., Gupta A., Owen J. E., Schlichting H. E., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2897 , 508, 5886

    2021 doi

  95. [103]

    S., et al., 2010, @doi [Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer] 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2010.05.001 , 111, 2139

    Rothman L. S., et al., 2010, @doi [Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer] 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2010.05.001 , 111, 2139

    2010 doi

  96. [104]

    ascl:1303.023

    STScI Development Team 2013, Astrophysics Source Code Library, p. ascl:1303.023

    2013

  97. [105]

    Scarsdale N., et al., 2024, JWST COMPASS : The 3-5 Micron Transmission Spectrum of the Super - Earth L 98-59 c, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07552 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240907552S

    2024 doi arXiv

  98. [106]

    Schlawin E., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7fef , 974, L33

    2024 doi

  99. [107]

    Seager S., Deming D., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 1884

    2009

  100. [108]

    Seager S., Mallen‐Ornelas G., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/346105 , 585, 1038

    2003 doi

  101. [109]

    Sotin C., Grasset O., Mocquet A., 2007, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.04.006 , 191, 337

    2007 doi

  102. [110]

    J., Wang H

    Spaargaren R. J., Wang H. S., Mojzsis S. J., Ballmer M. D., Tackley P. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac7d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948...53S 948, 53

    2023 doi

  103. [111]

    W., Kitzmann D., Patzer A

    Stock J. W., Kitzmann D., Patzer A. B. C., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac2623 , 517, 4070

    2022 doi

  104. [112]

    Taylor J., 2025, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/add881 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025RNAAS...9..118T 9, 118

    2025 doi

  105. [113]

    Taylor J., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1547 , 524, 817

    2023 doi

  106. [114]

    Trotta R., 2008, @doi [Contemporary Physics] 10.1080/00107510802066753 , 49, 71

    2008 doi

  107. [115]

    T., Dismukes E

    Unterborn C. T., Dismukes E. E., Panero W. R., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/32 , 819, 32

    2015 doi

  108. [116]

    T., Foley B

    Unterborn C. T., Foley B. J., Desch S. J., Young P. A., Vance G., Chiffelle L., Kane S. R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...930L...6U 930, L6

    2022 doi

  109. [117]

    R., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf04d , 157, 11

    Wakeford H. R., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf04d , 157, 11

    2019 doi

  110. [118]

    J., Donahue T

    Watson A. J., Donahue T. M., Ker J. C. G. W., 1981, Icarus, 48, 150

    1981

  111. [119]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfda5 , 915, 37

    Wood B. E., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfda5 , 915, 37

    2021 doi

  112. [120]

    J., Catling D

    Zahnle K. J., Catling D. C., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7846 , 843, 122

    2017 doi

  113. [121]

    Zhou L., Ma B., Wang Y.-H., Zhu Y.-N., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acaceb , 23, 025011

    2023 doi

  114. [122]

    Zieba S., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z , 620, 746

    2023 doi

  115. [123]

    de Wit J., et al., 2016, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature18641 , 537, 69

    2016 doi

  116. [124]

    de Wit J., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0374-z , 2, 214

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.