Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Interior redox state effects on the stability of secondary atmospheres and observational manifestations: LP 791-18 d as a case study for outgassing rocky exoplanets

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The interior oxidation state decides whether an outgassed rocky planet retains its atmosphere.

desk verdict Useful case study with a novel three-band diagnostic, but the stability threshold is less certain than the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02188 v2 pith:TNA4KHZA submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.EP

Leonardos Gkouvelis , Francisco J. Pozuelos , Thomas Drant , Mohammad Farhat , Meng Tian , Can Ak{i}n This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords LP791-18dsecondaryatmospheresoutgassingoxygenfugacityhydrodynamicescapeJWST/MIRIphotometrycolor-colordiagramtidalheating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that on tidally heated, volcanically outgassing rocky planets like LP 791-18 d, the interior's oxidation state, not its bulk metallicity, decides whether a secondary atmosphere can survive. Using a coupled model of mantle outgassing, photochemistry, and escape, the authors find that only strongly oxidized interiors (oxygen fugacity about two orders of magnitude above the iron–wüstite buffer) yield atmospheres heavy enough to resist hydrodynamic escape. Reduced interiors lose mass at roughly $10^{5}$ to $10^{8}$ kg/s and would likely exhaust their volatile budget within the system's roughly 500 million year lifetime. The paper also proposes a three-band JWST color–color diagram that separates surviving atmospheres from bare-rock surfaces even when hazes and clouds are present. If correct, atmospheric detections around small M-dwarf planets would preferentially point to oxidized interiors, and bare or tenuous surfaces should be common.

What carries the argument

The controlling mechanism is the mean molecular weight at the XUV-deposition layer, which fixes the isothermal sound speed $v_s = \sqrt{k T_0/(\mu m_H)}$ and therefore the sonic radius $r_s = G M_p/(2 v_s^2)$. The paper classifies an atmosphere as unstable when this sonic radius lies below the exobase, so a hydrodynamic wind forms; when it lies above, the thermosphere is treated as stable. Because oxygen fugacity determines which molecules the magma outgasses, light H$_2$/CH$_4$-rich compositions under reducing conditions versus heavier CO$_2$/H$_2$O-rich compositions when oxidized, the interior redox state effectively chooses the escape regime. The modeling chain couples a Gibbs-energy melt–gas equilibrium at the lower boundary, 1D radiative–convective and photochemical-kinetic steady states, and an isothermal wind solution closed by the energy-limited mass-loss formula.

What would settle it

If JWST/MIRI observations of LP 791-18 d detect a CO2-rich atmosphere under conditions where the interior is inferred to be reduced ($f_{O_2}-\mathrm{IW}$ below about 2), or if a non-isothermal upper-atmosphere model including radiative cooling finds stable thermospheres for reduced compositions, the paper's central claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that atmospheric stability on outgassing rocky exoplanets is controlled by the interior redox state: stability is achieved only for highly oxidized scenarios, roughly $f_{O_2}-\mathrm{IW} \gtrsim 2$, while reduced interior states fall into the hydrodynamic escape regime with mass-loss rates on the order of $10^5$–$10^8$ kg/s. The authors further find that the mean molecular weight gradient of the outgassed atmosphere is set by oxygen fugacity rather than bulk metallicity, and that the atmosphere's survivability follows from that gradient because it sets the sound speed at the XUV-heated wind base. For the specific case of LP 791-18 d, they estimate a mantle temperature of about 1680–1880 K from fluid tidal heating, outgassing rates of roughly 20–27 km$^3$/yr of magma, and conclude that reduced-interior scenarios would have exhausted their volatiles over the planet's lifetime. They also predict that a color–color diagram using JWST/MIRI F1000W, F1500W, and F2100W photometry breaks the degeneracy between bare rock and thick atmospheres, with the separation robust to surface pressure, graphite activity, photochemical hazes, and gray clouds.

Load-bearing premise

The whole stability verdict rests on an isothermal wind model whose closure equation does not actually fix the wind temperature, so the $f_{O_2}$ threshold near 2 is approximate and could shift if radiative cooling in the thermosphere is included.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reduced interiors ($f_{O_2}-\mathrm{IW} \lesssim 2$) are unlikely to retain secondary atmospheres over gigayear timescales; such planets should appear as bare or tenuous rocky worlds.
  • Atmospheric detections on small, tidally heated planets around M dwarfs would preferentially indicate oxidized interiors, making the observed sample biased toward high oxygen fugacity.
  • The color–color diagram with F1000W, F1500W, and F2100W can resolve the bare-rock versus thick-atmosphere degeneracy at roughly 30–45 ppm uncertainty, which is within JWST/MIRI reach for thin, highly oxidized atmospheres.
  • A single 15 µm band, or even two bands, cannot unambiguously separate an atmosphere from a bare rock; only the three-band combination does, and it is insensitive to surface pressure and graphite activity.
  • Mean molecular weight of the atmosphere tracks $\log(f_{O_2})$, so emission spectra can be used to infer the planet's interior oxidation state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $f_{O_2}-\mathrm{IW} \gtrsim 2$ threshold holds generally, the population of rocky planets around M dwarfs with detectable atmospheres should be systematically oxidized, which would bias any census of volatile inventories and habitability indicators.
  • The same three-band color–color strategy could be applied to other JWST-observed rocky planets like TRAPPIST-1 b; if a bare-rock planet fell in the stable-atmosphere region of the diagram, the classification would need revision.
  • The intermediate redox range $0 \lesssim f_{O_2}-\mathrm{IW} \lesssim 2$ may self-stabilize through preferential escape of light species and diffusive enrichment of heavy ones, a feedback the paper mentions but does not model; time-dependent escape–outgassing models could test whether such atmospheres survive longer than the static criterion predicts.
  • Because outgassed pressure scales exponentially with melt temperature, the mantle temperature of 1680–1880 K, derived from fluid tidal heating, is a sensitive input; a lower temperature would reduce outgassing and could shift the redox threshold, so pinning down the rheological transition is critical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a coupled modeling study of the tidally heated rocky exoplanet LP 791-18 d, combining an interior outgassing model (Tian & Heng 2024), chemical kinetics and photochemistry (VULCAN), radiative-convective transfer (HELIOS), and synthetic secondary-eclipse spectra. The authors estimate a mantle temperature of ~1680-1880 K from fluid tidal heating, compute steady-state atmospheric compositions over a grid of oxygen fugacity, surface pressure, and graphite activity, and then classify each atmosphere as stable or as undergoing hydrodynamic escape using an isothermal planetary-wind criterion. The central claims are that the atmospheric mean molecular weight is controlled by oxygen fugacity rather than bulk metallicity, that stable atmospheres require highly oxidized interiors (fO2-IW ≳ 2), that reduced interiors suffer mass loss of order 10^5-10^8 kg/s and likely exhaust their volatiles, and that a three-band JWST/MIRI color-color diagram can distinguish bare-rock surfaces from thick oxidized atmospheres.

Significance. If the stability threshold fO2-IW ≳ 2 holds, the paper would establish a direct connection between interior redox state and the survivability of secondary atmospheres on M-dwarf rocky planets, with clear observational predictions for LP 791-18 d and similar targets. The study is valuable for its integration of outgassing, photochemistry, radiative transfer, and observing-strategy analysis in a single framework, and it explicitly labels its escape rates as qualitative upper bounds. The color-color diagnostic is a useful new idea, and the comparison of HELIOS and petitRADTRANS spectra is a welcome validation step. The central results are model outputs rather than fitted targets, so the circularity burden is low; the main risks are the technical closure of the escape model and the strength of a claim that is not actually varied in the parameter grid.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Eqs. (14)-(20)] The closure for T0 is not specified in the text. Eq. (20) gives an energy-limited mass-loss rate that contains neither T0 nor a base density, so on its own it does not determine the isothermal sonic speed v_s, the sonic radius r_s = GM_p/(2 v_s^2), or the stable-versus-wind boundary. One can close the system if the simulated density at R_xuv is used in Eq. (14) together with Eqs. (18)-(19), but this step is never stated. Section 8 introduces a different prescription, that T0 'captures the peak temperature of the thermal profile' near the wind base, which is not derived from the §5 system. Since the headline threshold fO2-IW ≳ 2 depends directly on r_s, please state the closure explicitly, show how T0 is obtained, and test the sensitivity of the stability boundary to the adopted T0 or to the thermospheric peak temperature.
  2. [Abstract and §4.3, Table 1] The claim that the atmospheric mean molecular weight is controlled by oxygen fugacity 'rather than bulk metallicity' is not tested by the simulations. The grid varies oxygen fugacity, surface pressure, and graphite activity, but no independent bulk-metallicity axis is varied. Either add simulations that vary the total volatile inventory or bulk metallicity, or restate the conclusion as dominance of fO2 over the other varied parameters. As written, the abstract overstates what the parameter space can show.
  3. [§8, Eq. (34)] The volatile-exhaustion argument uses the mass-loss rates that the paper itself labels as 'qualitative upper bounds' because radiative cooling is neglected. At the lower bound of 10^5 kg/s, the cumulative loss over 500 Myr is ~1.6×10^21 kg, which is below the adopted conservative reservoir of ~6×10^21 kg; a reduction of the escape rate by a factor of a few, as expected from radiative cooling, would remove the conclusion that reduced interiors are 'likely exhausted'. Please propagate the stated uncertainty in Mdot into the lifetime estimate and either quantify a lower bound on the escape rate or soften the abstract and concluding claims accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5, Eq. (20)] The text describes R_xuv as the deposition radius, but the equation's variable list mentions R_p; please make the notation consistent.
  2. [§4.1, Eq. (6)] The text mentions a species-specific correction factor Γ_ij, but the equation as printed does not include Γ_ij; please clarify where the correction enters.
  3. [Table 1] The dashes in the grid could mean either 'not computed' or 'did not converge'; please state which.
  4. [Fig. 2] The legend for the convective flux curves with different melt-fraction coefficients B is hard to read; please make the curve labels explicit in the figure.
  5. [§5] The phrase 'energy-limited constant flow' is misleading because Eq. (20) is an integrated energy budget, not a flow closure; consider renaming it as an energy-limited mass-loss constraint.
  6. [References] The citation to Drant et al. (2025) as 'in minor revision' should be updated to the published version or marked as submitted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: the central stability and redox-threshold claims are forward model outputs, not fitted targets. The main caveat is an underdetermined T0 closure in Section 5, which is a correctness risk rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central results—the fO2-controlled mean molecular weight, the stability threshold fO2−IW≳2, the 10^5–10^8 kg/s mass-loss rates, and the color–color discrimination—are all outputs of a forward modeling chain, not quantities fitted to reproduce those same conclusions. The lower boundary is set by the Tian & Heng (2024) outgassing model, which takes fO2, surface pressure, and graphite activity as inputs and returns outgassed mixing ratios; the steady-state atmospheres are then computed with HELIOS/VULCAN; and the escape classification is evaluated from the isothermal wind equations (14)–(20). No equation in the paper defines the stability criterion in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper does rely on prior work with overlapping authorship—Farhat et al. (2025) for fluid tidal heating, Drant et al. (2025, in minor revision) for the code coupling, and Tian & Heng (2024) for outgassing—but these are published or forthcoming external derivations, not the present result, and their validity does not depend on this paper's conclusions. The most significant flagged issue is in Section 5: the paper states that closure for T0 is achieved via the energy-limited mass-loss formula (Eq. 20), but Eq. (20) contains no T0, so the sonic radius and the stable-versus-wind boundary are underdetermined as written. Section 8 instead describes T0 as capturing the peak temperature of the modeled thermal profile, and the paper itself concedes the mass-loss rates are 'qualitative upper bounds.' This is an omitted derivation and a robustness concern, but it is not a circular reduction: the stability result is not equivalent to an input by construction. Because the self-citations are not load-bearing in the circularity sense and no quoted equation reduces to its own input, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with minor credit given for the unresolved closure statement and the reliance on in-group prior work.

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

The central claims rest on a chain of modeling assumptions: the outgassing equilibrium, the atmospheric coupling, the escape closure, and the stellar XUV estimate. These are standard domain assumptions in the field, but several are not independently verified for this target, and one load-bearing framework is unpublished.

free parameters (5)
  • Dissipative timescale sigma_R = 1e-3 s^-1
    Used in the fluid tidal heating model (Section 3) to estimate the mantle temperature range 1680-1880 K. Described as conservative, but it is a hand-chosen value that directly sets the melt temperature.
  • Melt temperature T = 1720 K
    Fixed across all simulations (Section 4.3) within the estimated 1680-1880 K range. The paper notes outgassed pressures scale exponentially with melt temperature, but does not test sensitivity to T.
  • Mixing length parameter alpha = 0.1
    Sets the eddy diffusion coefficient via Eq. (3). Chosen by benchmarking with Venus, Earth, and Mars, not derived for LP 791-18d.
  • Escape efficiency eta = 0.1
    Energy-limited escape formula (Eq. 20). Assumed conservative from a literature range of 0.01-0.6 (Section 5).
  • Surface albedo A_B = 0.1
    Baseline surface albedo for the main grid (Section 4.4). Sensitivity explored from 0.01 to 0.6 with minor spectral impact.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gas-melt thermochemical equilibrium at the lower boundary (Tian & Heng 2024) correctly predicts outgassed volatile composition.
    Section 4.3 sets the lower boundary composition by minimizing Gibbs energy at the melt surface; the accuracy of this equilibrium for magma oceans is assumed.
  • domain assumption The VULCAN-HELIOS coupling described in Drant et al. (2025) reaches a valid steady state for all grid points.
    Section 4 relies on the companion paper for the numerical coupling; that paper is unpublished ('in minor revision') and the iteration details are not given here.
  • domain assumption The energy-limited escape formula (Sanz-Forcada et al. 2011) with eta=0.1 applies to secondary atmospheres at LP 791-18d.
    Section 5 uses Eq. (20) to close the escape calculation and set mass-loss rates; the formula is an approximation that the paper acknowledges gives upper bounds.
  • domain assumption The star's XUV luminosity follows the King & Wheatley (2021) scaling with saturation at 100 Myr and age 500 Myr.
    Section 5 uses Eq. (21) to estimate F_XUV = 0.1 W/m^2; the age of the system and the scaling law are literature inputs with uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The fluid tidal heating model of Farhat et al. (2025) with sigma_R = 1e-3 s^-1 correctly captures the molten-mantle tidal response.
    Section 3 uses this model to revise the mantle temperature upward from the solid-Maxwell model of Peterson et al. (2023); the dissipative timescale is a free choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interior redox state effects on the stability of secondary atmospheres and observational manifestations: LP 791-18 d as a case study for outgassing rocky exoplanets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNA4KHZA

@misc{pith2026250602188,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interior redox state effects on the stability of secondary atmospheres and observational manifestations: LP 791-18 d as a case study for outgassing rocky exoplanets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNA4KHZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02188}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in space and ground-based facilities now enable atmospheric characterization of a selected sample of rocky exoplanets. These atmospheres offer key insights into planetary formation and evolution, but their interpretation requires models that couple atmospheric processes with both the planetary interior and the surrounding space environment. This work focuses on the Earth-size planet LP791 18d, which is estimated to receive continuous tidal heating due to the orbital configuration of the system; thus, it is expected to exhibit volcanic activity. We estimate the mantle temperature of 1680-1880 K. Our results show that the atmospheric mean molecular weight gradient is controlled by oxygen fugacity rather than bulk metallicity. Furthermore, we use the atmospheric steady-state solutions produced from the interior redox state versus surface pressure parameter space and explore their atmospheric stability. We find that stability is achieved only in highly oxidized scenarios while reduced interior states fall into the hydrodynamic escape regime with mass loss rates on the order of 10^5-10^8 kg/s. We argue that scenarios with reduced interior states are likely to have exhausted their volatile budget during the planets lifetime. Furthermore, we predict the atmospheric footprint of the planets interior based on its oxidation state and assess its detectability using current or forthcoming tools to constrain the internal and atmospheric composition. We show that the degeneracy between bare rock surfaces and thick atmospheres can be resolved by using three photometric bands to construct a color-color diagram that accounts for potential effects from photochemical hazes and clouds. Our modeling approach connects interior and atmospheric processes, providing a basis to explore volatile evolution and potential habitability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02188 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mind map describing the different parts of our methodol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Modeled internal energy balance for LP 791-18 d. Plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Converged simulations for a surface pressure of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Converged simulations for a surface pressure of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean molecular weight (𝜇) of the outgassed atmosphere (in amu) as a function of varying surface pressure, oxygen fugac￾ity ( 𝑓O2 ), and graphite activity (𝑎C). Each panel isolates the effect of one parameter by holding it fixed while allowing the other two to vary, as …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top:Vertical temperature profile for a reduced and oxi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Wind velocity profile as a function of radius for a surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean molecular weight across the simulation param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Airless body scenarios. Secondary eclipse depth spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Thermal emission spectrum for a simulation with surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left: 15 𝜇m band secondary eclipse depth as a function of 𝑓 𝑂2 across the surface pressure grid space with main graphite activity 𝑎𝑐 = 10−6 . Dashed circles indicate stable atmospheres, as approximated using the methodology described in Section 5. Symbols in black ind…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Photometric band ratios for various surface pressures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Proposed color-color diagram that breaks the degeneracy between bare-rock and thick oxidized stable atmospheres. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Gray cloud deck effects on the emission spectra. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Effects of photochemical haze aerosols. (a) Reduced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Proposed color-color diagram including the effects of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Gray cloud effects in the spectral indexes introduced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]

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. Detailed Architecture of the L 98-59 System and Confirmation of a Fifth Planet in the Habitable Zone

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper confirms a non-transiting habitable-zone super-Earth (L 98-59 f) and refines masses, radii, and near-circular eccentricities for all five planets in the L 98-59 system.

  2. Characterizing the oxidation state of rocky exoplanets with the Large Interferometer for Exoplanets (LIFE)

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    LIFE baseline mid-IR observations of Earth-sized planets at 10 pc can retrieve CO2, CH4, and NH3 well enough to distinguish mantle redox states from IW-6 to IW+6 under the paper's modeling assumptions.

  3. An Earth-like Density for the Temperate Earth-sized Planet GJ 12b

    astro-ph.EP 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    GJ12b, a temperate Earth-sized planet orbiting a quiet M dwarf, has a measured mass of 0.71 ± 0.12 Earth masses and an Earth-like density.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2011, Earth Moon and Planets, 108, 9

    Abe, Y. 2011, Earth Moon and Planets, 108, 9

    2011

  2. [2]

    S., Angerhausen, D., et al

    Alei, E., Konrad, B. S., Angerhausen, D., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A106

    2022

  3. [3]

    D., Meadows, V

    Arney, G., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 873

    2016

  4. [4]

    2022, in Advances in Geo- physics, Vol

    Bagheri, A., Efroimsky, M., Castillo-Rogez, J., et al. 2022, in Advances in Geo- physics, Vol. 63 (Elsevier), 231–320

    2022

  5. [5]

    Banks, P. M. & Kockarts, G. 1973, Aeronomy

    1973

  6. [6]

    C., Dobos, V., & Kiss, L

    Barr, A. C., Dobos, V., & Kiss, L. L. 2018, A&A, 613, A37

    2018

  7. [7]

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

    Batalha, N. E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 064501

    2017

  8. [8]

    R., France, K., Brown, A., et al

    Behr, P. R., France, K., Brown, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 35

    2023

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    A., et al

    Bello-Arufe, A., Damiano, M., Bennett, K. A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 980, L26

    2025

  2. [10]

    2024, Thermal emission of a cool, potentially volcanically active exo-Earth, JWST Proposal

    Benneke, B., Piaulet Ghorayeb, C., & Roy, P.-A. 2024, Thermal emission of a cool, potentially volcanically active exo-Earth, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #6457

    2024

  3. [11]

    Bougher, S. W. & Roble, R. G. 1991, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 11045

    1991

  4. [12]

    J., Hakim, K., Sossi, P

    Bower, D. J., Hakim, K., Sossi, P. A., & Sanan, P. 2022, PSJ, 3, 93

    2022

  5. [13]

    A., & Sohl, F

    Brachmann, C., Noack, L., Baumeister, P. A., & Sohl, F. 2025, Icarus, 429, 116450

    2025

  6. [14]

    S., Gkouvelis, L., Harman, C

    Brecht, A. S., Gkouvelis, L., Harman, C. E., et al. 2022, in AGU Fall Meeting

    2022

  7. [15]

    Burrows, A. S. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12601

    2014

  8. [16]

    Carey, V. P. 1988, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 1, 409 Carlson,R.W.,Garnero,E.,Harrison,T.M.,etal.2014,AnnualReviewofEarth and Planetary Sciences, 42, 151

    1988

  9. [17]

    & Cowling, T

    Chapman, S. & Cowling, T. G. 1970, The mathematical theory of non-uniform gases. an account of the kinetic theory of viscosity, thermal conduction and diffusion in gases

    1970

  10. [18]

    L., Robert, S., Sousa-Silva, C., et al

    Chubb, K. L., Robert, S., Sousa-Silva, C., et al. 2024, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 3, 636

    2024

  11. [19]

    N., Swayze, G

    Clark, R. N., Swayze, G. A., Wise, R. A., et al. 2007, USGS Digital Spectral Library splib06a, U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 231

    2007

  12. [20]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Waalkes, W., Newton, E. R., et al. 2019, ApJL, 883, L16

    2019

  13. [21]

    & Hirschmann, M

    Dasgupta, R. & Hirschmann, M. M. 2010, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 298, 1–13

    2010

  14. [22]

    Davies, J. H. & Davies, D. R. 2010, Solid Earth, 1, 5

    2010

  15. [23]

    & Turner, E

    Dobos, V. & Turner, E. L. 2015, ApJ, 804, 41

    2015

  16. [24]

    L., Hapke, B

    Domingue, D. L., Hapke, B. W., Lockwood, G. W., & Thompson, D. T. 1991, Icarus, 90, 30

    1991

  17. [25]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, [In minor revision]

    Drant, T., Tian, M., Carrasco, N., & Heng, K. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, [In minor revision]

    2025

  18. [26]

    2024, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:2412.11627]

    Ducrot, E., Lagage, P.-O., Min, M., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:2412.11627]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Elkins-Tanton, L. T. & Seager, S. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 685, 1237–1246

    2008

  20. [28]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 133

    Farhat, M., Auclair-Desrotour, P., Boué, G., Lichtenberg, T., & Laskar, J. 2025, ApJ, 979, 133

    2025

  21. [29]

    Flynn, L. P. & Mouginis-Mark, P. J. 1992, Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 1783

    1992

  22. [30]

    & Scaillet, B

    Gaillard, F. & Scaillet, B. 2014, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 403, 307

    2014

  23. [31]

    R., Moran, S

    Gao, P., Wakeford, H. R., Moran, S. E., & Parmentier, V. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06655

    2021

  24. [32]

    2025, PSJ, 6, 110

    Gkouvelis, L. 2025, PSJ, 6, 110

    2025

  25. [33]

    2024, A&A, 690, A319 Gkouvelis,L.,Brecht,A.,Kling,A.,etal.2021,inAGUFallMeetingAbstracts, Vol

    Gkouvelis, L., Akın, C., & Heng, K. 2024, A&A, 690, A319 Gkouvelis,L.,Brecht,A.,Kling,A.,etal.2021,inAGUFallMeetingAbstracts, Vol. 2021, P35F–2186

    2024

  26. [34]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023,Nature, 618, 39 Gronoff,G.,Arras,P.,Baraka,S.M.,etal.2020,arXive-prints,arXiv:2003.03231

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M., Lichtenberg, T., et al

    Hammond, M., Guimond, C. M., Lichtenberg, T., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L40

    2025

  28. [36]

    Hapke, B. 1981, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 3039

    1981

  29. [37]

    1993, Theory of reflectance and emittance spectroscopy

    Hapke, B. 1993, Theory of reflectance and emittance spectroscopy

    1993

  30. [38]

    2002, Icarus, 157, 523

    Hapke, B. 2002, Icarus, 157, 523

    2002

  31. [39]

    N., Bosman, A

    Heays, A. N., Bosman, A. D., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2017, A&A, 602, A105

    2017

  32. [40]

    1988, Icarus, 73, 462

    Helfenstein, P. 1988, Icarus, 73, 462

    1988

  33. [41]

    Hirschmann, M. M. 2006, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34, 629–653

    2006

  34. [42]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 166

    Hu, R., Seager, S., & Bains, W. 2012, ApJ, 761, 166

    2012

  35. [43]

    James, T. & Hu, R. 2018, ApJ, 867, 17

    2018

  36. [44]

    P., Bartel, M., & Güdel, M

    Johnstone, C. P., Bartel, M., & Güdel, M. 2021, A&A, 649, A96 Johnstone,C.P.,Güdel,M.,Lammer,H.,&Kislyakova,K.G.2018a,A&A,617, A107 Johnstone,C.P.,Güdel,M.,Lammer,H.,&Kislyakova,K.G.2018b,A&A,617, A107

    2021

  37. [45]

    P., Güdel, M., Stökl, A., et al

    Johnstone, C. P., Güdel, M., Stökl, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 815, L12

    2015

  38. [46]

    King, G. W. & Wheatley, P. J. 2021, MNRAS, 501, L28

    2021

  39. [47]

    Koll, D. D. B. 2022, ApJ, 924, 134

    2022

  40. [48]

    Kreidberg, L., Koll, D. D. B., Morley, C., et al. 2019,Nature, 573, 87

    2019

  41. [49]

    & Sugita, S

    Kuwahara, H. & Sugita, S. 2015, Icarus, 257, 290

    2015

  42. [50]

    2009, Nature, 459, 957

    Lainey, V., Arlot, J.-E., Karatekin, Ö., & Van Hoolst, T. 2009, Nature, 459, 957

    2009

  43. [51]

    Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. & Cassinelli, J. P. 1999, Introduction to Stellar Winds Lampón, M., López-Puertas, M., Lara, L. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A13 Lavvas,P.,Koskinen,T.,Steinrueck,M.E.,GarcíaMuñoz,A.,&Showman,A.P. 2019, ApJ, 878, 118

    1999

  44. [52]

    V., & Griffith, C

    Lavvas, P., Yelle, R. V., & Griffith, C. A. 2010, Icarus, 210, 832

    2010

  45. [53]

    P., Coustenis, A., & Vardavas, I

    Lavvas, P. P., Coustenis, A., & Vardavas, I. M. 2008, Planet. Space Sci., 56, 67 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Pont, F., Vidal-Madjar, A., & Sing, D. 2008, A&A, 481, L83

    2008

  46. [54]

    2020, Remote Sensing, 12, 2046

    Lombardo, V., Pick, L., Spinetti, C., Tadeucci, J., & Zakšek, K. 2020, Remote Sensing, 12, 2046

    2020

  47. [55]

    Lyu, X., Koll, D. D. B., Cowan, N. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 152

    2024

  48. [56]

    M., et al

    Malik, M., Grosheintz, L., Mendonça, J. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 56

    2017

  49. [57]

    M., et al

    Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., Mendonça, J. M., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 170 Milliken,R.2020,RELABSpectralLibraryBundle,NASAPlanetaryDataSys- tem, urn:nasa:pds:relab::2.0

    2019

  50. [58]

    E., Hiroi, T., Scholes, D., Slavney, S., & Arvidson, R

    Milliken, R. E., Hiroi, T., Scholes, D., Slavney, S., & Arvidson, R. 2021, in LPI Contributions, Vol. 2654, Astromaterials Data Management in the Era of Sample-Return Missions Community Workshop, 2021 Mollière, P., Stolker, T., Lacour, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A131 Mollière,...

    2021

  51. [59]

    Moore, W. B. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 108, 5096 Muslimov,E.,Neiner,C.,&Bouret,J.-C.2024,arXive-prints,arXiv:2410.01491

    2003 arXiv

  52. [60]

    2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 5875

    Nasedkin, E., Mollière, P., & Blain, D. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 5875

    2024

  53. [61]

    M., Hapke, B

    Nelson, R. M., Hapke, B. W., Smythe, W. D., & Spilker, L. J. 2000, Icarus, 147, 545

    2000

  54. [62]

    R., Mondrik, N., Irwin, J., Winters, J

    Newton, E. R., Mondrik, N., Irwin, J., Winters, J. G., & Charbonneau, D. 2018, AJ, 156, 217

    2018

  55. [63]

    Owen, J. E. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 67

    2019

  56. [64]

    Parker, E. N. 1958, ApJ, 128, 664

    1958

  57. [65]

    S., Benneke, B., Collins, K., et al

    Peterson, M. S., Benneke, B., Collins, K., et al. 2023, Nature, 617, 701

    2023

  58. [66]

    S., Benneke, B., Collins, K., et al

    Peterson, M. S., Benneke, B., Collins, K., et al. 2023,Nature, 617, 701

    2023

  59. [67]

    Ramirez, R. M. & Kaltenegger, L. 2014, ApJL, 797, L25

    2014

  60. [68]

    & Basri, G

    Reiners, A. & Basri, G. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1416

    2009

  61. [69]

    L., Schneider, A

    Richey-Yowell, T., Shkolnik, E. L., Schneider, A. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 44

    2023

  62. [70]

    C., Czesla, S., & Schmitt, J

    Salz, M., Schneider, P. C., Czesla, S., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2016, A&A, 585, L2

    2016

  63. [71]

    2011, A&A, 532, A6

    Sanz-Forcada, J., Micela, G., Ribas, I., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A6

    2011

  64. [72]

    & Nakazawa, K

    Sasaki, S. & Nakazawa, K. 1990, Icarus, 85, 21

    1990

  65. [73]

    & Fegley, B

    Schaefer, L. & Fegley, B. 2010, Icarus, 208, 438–448

    2010

  66. [74]

    & Fegley, Jr., B

    Schaefer, L. & Fegley, Jr., B. 2017, ApJ, 843, 120

    2017

  67. [75]

    & Lissauer, J

    Seager, S. & Lissauer, J. J. 2010, in Exoplanets, ed. S. Seager, 3–13

    2010

  68. [76]

    L., Sossi, P

    Seidler, F. L., Sossi, P. A., & Grimm, S. L. 2024, A&A, 691, A159

    2024

  69. [77]

    Z., Feinstein, A

    Seligman, D. Z., Feinstein, A. D., Lai, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 22

    2024

  70. [78]

    I., Ionov, D

    Shematovich, V. I., Ionov, D. E., & Lammer, H. 2014, A&A, 571, A94

    2014

  71. [79]

    Shizgal, B. D. & Arkos, G. G. 1996, Reviews of Geophysics, 34, 483

    1996

  72. [80]

    & Starukhina, L

    Shkuratov, Y. & Starukhina, L. 1999, Icarus, 137, 235

    1999

  73. [81]

    Shkuratov, Y. G. & Helfenstein, P. 2001, Icarus, 152, 96 Shorttle,O.,Jordan,S.,Nicholls,H.,Lichtenberg,T.,&Bower,D.J.2024,ApJL, 962, L8

    2001

  74. [82]

    2015, in Treatise on Geophysics (Second Edition), second edition edn., ed

    Solomatov, V. 2015, in Treatise on Geophysics (Second Edition), second edition edn., ed. G. Schubert (Oxford: Elsevier), 81–104

    2015

  75. [83]

    B., Pavlov, A

    Tian, F., Toon, O. B., Pavlov, A. A., & De Sterck, H. 2005, ApJ, 621, 1049

    2005

  76. [84]

    & Heng, K

    Tian, M. & Heng, K. 2024, ApJ, 963, 157

    2024

  77. [85]

    R., Grosheintz, L., et al

    Tsai, S.-M., Lyons, J. R., Grosheintz, L., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 20

    2017

  78. [86]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 264

    Tsai, S.-M., Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 264

    2021

  79. [87]

    2018, A&A, 609, A34

    Venot, O., Bénilan, Y., Fray, N., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A34

    2018

  80. [88]

    & Walter, F

    Vilhu, O. & Walter, F. M. 1987, ApJ, 321, 958

    1987

  81. [89]

    J., Donahue, T

    Watson, A. J., Donahue, T. M., & Walker, J. C. G. 1981, Icarus, 48, 150

    1981

  82. [90]

    J., Froning, C

    Wilson, D. J., Froning, C. S., Duvvuri, G. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 85

    2025

  83. [91]

    J., Drake, J

    Wright, N. J., Drake, J. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Henry, G. W. 2011, ApJ, 743, 48

    2011

  84. [92]

    L., Zhang, M., et al

    Xue, Q., Bean, J. L., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L8

    2024

  85. [93]

    Yelle, R. V. 2004, Icarus, 170, 167

    2004

  86. [94]

    2007, Space Science Reviews, 129, 35–78

    Zahnle, K., Arndt, N., Cockell, C., et al. 2007, Space Science Reviews, 129, 35–78

    2007

  87. [95]

    Zahnle, K. J. & Catling, D. C. 2017, ApJ, 843, 122

    2017

  88. [96]

    2023,Nature, 620, 746 Article number, page 21 of 21

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023,Nature, 620, 746 Article number, page 21 of 21

    2023

Pith tools

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