Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 125 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 1D retrieval on simulated high-resolution spectra of WASP-76 b is biased toward the steepest-gradient regions of the atmosphere, not its brightest emitting regions.

desk verdict A careful controlled simulation study showing 1D HRS emission retrievals do not recover a disk average but align with high-temperature-gradient regions; the gradient interpretation is conditional on the P-T parameterization but the core bias result holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16687 v2 pith:PQ74C6OS submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.EP

Lennart van Sluijs , Hayley Beltz , Isaac Malsky , Genevieve H. Pereira , L. Cinque , Emily Rauscher , Jayne Birkby This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords HighresolutionspectroscopyExoplanetatmosphericcompositionstructureAstronomicalsimulationsretrievalGlobalcirculationmodelsWASP-76bbias
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

Atmospheric retrievals are the standard way to turn high-resolution spectra of exoplanets into temperature and chemistry constraints, yet they use one-dimensional models on atmospheres that are genuinely three-dimensional. This paper asks whether that mismatch silently biases the answer, and shows, using simulated high-resolution emission observations built from a 3D global circulation model of the hot Jupiter WASP-76 b, that it does. The 1D retrieval returns a profile that sits inside the range of true atmospheric conditions, so it is not wrong in an obvious sense, but it is not a homogeneous average either. High-resolution spectroscopy removes the continuum, so the retrieval matches line contrast, which is set by the temperature difference between where line cores and continuum form; the retrieved atmosphere therefore tracks the regions with the steepest thermal gradients near line-forming pressures, which in this model are cooler westward longitudes rather than the brightest eastward hot spot. If correct, published 1D HRS retrievals may be describing a steep-gradient subregion of the planet rather than its dominant emitting layers.

What carries the argument

The test apparatus is a simulated high-resolution time series: phase-dependent emission spectra from the RM-GCM global circulation model of WASP-76 b (picket-fence radiative transfer, drag-free winds, Doppler-on post-processing), interpolated across 107 frames at R = 45,000, combined with PHOENIX stellar and Telfit telluric models, then reduced with PCA exactly as real observations are. The load-bearing diagnostic is geometric: each local spectrum is weighted by a viewing factor $f = \cos^2(\mathrm{lon})\cos(\mathrm{lat})$, and the $\tau = 2/3$ surfaces map where the continuum, CO, and H2O line cores form. Because the high-resolution pipeline removes the continuum, the Brogi & Line (2019) log-likelihood matches only relative line contrast, which is set by the temperature difference between line-core and continuum-forming pressures. The paper then ranks GCM profiles by the mean temperature gradient $dT/dP$ inside the line-forming region and shows the retrieved profile tracks the strongest net inversions, not the highest flux.

What would settle it

Repeat the retrieval suite with a flexible, non-parametric P-T profile (e.g., free-floating P-T points) on the same simulated dataset: if the retrieved profile still aligns with the maximum-gradient GCM profiles, the gradient-sensitivity claim stands; if it shifts toward the hotter, brighter regions, the bias is an artifact of the parameterization. A second check: rerun with a GCM variant in which the hottest spot also carries steep line-forming gradients, since the paper's mechanism predicts the bias (cooler-than-brightest retrieved profile and low CO abundance) should weaken or disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a 1D retrieval applied to inherently 3D high-resolution emission data does not return a homogeneous average of the atmosphere: the retrieved pressure-temperature (P-T) and chemical profiles are biased toward spatial regions with large thermal gradients at the pressures where spectral lines form, which need not coincide with the regions emitting the most radiation. In the WASP-76 b GCM studied here, the brightest region is a nearly isothermal, eastward-offset hot spot with shallow lines, while the cooler westward longitudes carry strong inversions between the line-core and continuum-forming pressures; the retrieved profile aligns with those steep-gradient profiles. The retrieved CO and H2O abundances come out slightly below the GCM values, which the authors attribute to degeneracies between the P-T parameters and abundances, the limited flexibility of the Madhusudhan & Seager (2009) parameterization, and small Doppler offsets between CO and H2O lines that make CO lines appear shallower, with rotational broadening ($v_{\rm rot}\sin i \approx 6.5$ km/s) partially masking the mismatch. The three retrieval experiments (with and without water dissociation, with and without rotational broadening) are mutually consistent within 1σ, so the bias is not driven by those modeling choices.

Load-bearing premise

The headline bias, that the retrieved profile maps onto the steepest-gradient regions, is read off through the Madhusudhan & Seager (2009) P-T parameterization, which the authors themselves note cannot capture the different thermal gradients in the CO and H2O line-forming regions, and through a picket-fence GCM whose hot spot is nearly isothermal; with a more flexible parameterization or a GCM with a steeper hot-spot profile, the retrieved solution might land on different regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Published 1D HRS emission retrievals may describe a steep-gradient subregion of a hot Jupiter rather than its dominant emitting layers, so retrieved compositions and thermal structures should be read as region-weighted rather than disk-averaged.
  • Joint high- and low-resolution fits that use a single P-T profile can be biased whenever the steepest-gradient region and the brightest region are spatially distinct, because the two data types carry different information (line contrast versus continuum).
  • The P-T parameterization choice is consequential: the Madhusudhan & Seager (2009) form cannot simultaneously represent the thermal gradients at CO and H2O line-forming pressures, and more flexible profiles could shift the retrieved solution.
  • Molecule-dependent Doppler offsets matter: water lines dominate the retrieved velocity, misaligning CO lines and pulling the retrieved CO abundance low, while rotational broadening partly masks the effect.
  • Water dissociation has negligible impact on retrieved abundances in emission at the pressures probed here, in contrast to its impact in transmission spectroscopy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The gradient-weighting mechanism should generalize: any retrieval that fits only relative line contrast should preferentially weight the region maximizing line-core-to-continuum temperature contrast, so the bias should be strongest for planets whose bright spots are isothermal and should weaken for planets whose hottest regions also have the steepest gradients.
  • Multi-species retrievals may be silently probing different spatial regions for different molecules, so apparent abundance inconsistencies between species could encode 3D structure rather than chemistry; allowing per-molecule velocity offsets is a cheap partial correction that this paper's data already hint at.
  • Observables that anchor absolute flux, such as independently calibrated spectra or simultaneous photometry, could break the degeneracy that pushes 1D solutions toward steep-gradient regions, and combining those with HRS in a joint fit using two P-T profiles (one for continuum, one for lines) is a concrete next step.
  • A validation protocol suggests itself: before trusting abundance or thermal constraints from a 1D HRS retrieval of a real planet, run the same retrieval against GCM spectra of that planet and check whether the recovered profile maps onto a high-gradient subregion rather than the emitting disk.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether 1D atmospheric retrievals run on high-resolution emission spectra of a 3D hot Jupiter atmosphere produce unbiased constraints. The authors use the RM-GCM simulation of WASP-76 b to generate phase-dependent spectra over orbital phases 0.54-0.64, inject these into a simplified IGRINS-like observational simulator with stellar and telluric components, apply PCA post-processing, and run 1D retrievals with the Madhusudhan & Seager (2009) P-T parameterization in three configurations that vary water dissociation and rotational broadening. The retrieved P-T and abundance profiles fall within the range of GCM conditions, but the retrieved P-T profile aligns most closely with GCM columns that have the largest mean temperature gradients in the spectral line-forming region, rather than with the hottest or most emissive regions. The authors conclude that 1D HRS retrievals are biased toward high-gradient subregions and are not a homogeneous average of the 3D atmosphere, and they discuss implications for joint low-plus-high-resolution fits and for species-dependent Doppler shifts. The paper includes a 1D mock retrieval validation in Appendix A and releases the software on GitHub/Zenodo.

Significance. If the gradient-sensitivity conclusion is robust, it is an important caution for the exoplanet HRS retrieval community: 1D emission retrievals could be characterizing localized high-gradient atmospheric columns rather than the disk-averaged emitting atmosphere, which would affect abundance and P-T interpretations and complicate joint retrievals with low-resolution data. The paper's methodological care is a strength: the retrieval pipeline is validated on a 1D mock dataset, the three retrieval experiments are mutually consistent, and the authors explicitly enumerate caveats in Section 5.4. The software release and the use of a realistic observational framework strengthen reproducibility. However, the central inference is currently entangled with the choice of P-T parameterization, because the parameterization is acknowledged to be too inflexible to capture the differing CO and H2O line-forming gradients; a control experiment with a more flexible profile parameterization is needed before the headline claim can be regarded as a property of HRS rather than of the model family.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1 and Figure 7] The central claim that the retrieved 1D profile is most sensitive to GCM columns with the largest thermal gradients in the line-forming region is established using only the Madhusudhan & Seager (2009) P-T parameterization. Section 5.4 states that this parameterization 'cannot sufficiently capture the different thermal gradients in the CO and H2O line forming regions,' and Section 5.1 offers parameterization inflexibility as an alternative explanation for the deeper-atmosphere mismatch. Since the bottom panels of Figure 7 are the primary evidence for the gradient-alignment conclusion, the alignment may be an artifact of the restricted model family: with only alpha1, alpha2, and P2 controlling the inversion and deeper non-inversion slopes, and with log P2 strongly correlated with the retrieved abundances (Figure 11), the best-fit profile could be steered toward a particular GCM locus even if the data are equally consistent with other thermal structures. I request a control retrieval with a more flexible P-T description, such as free P-T nodes (e.g., Bazinet et al. 2024 or Smith et al. 2024b, which the authors themselves suggest), to test whether the retrieved profile still maps onto the maximum-gradient columns. This is load-bearing for the headline conclusion.
  2. [Section 5.3 and abstract/conclusion] The abstract and conclusion state that 'Doppler offsets among opacity sources' impact retrieval results, but this is not directly tested in the paper. The evidence in Section 5.3 consists of the rightmost panels of Figure 8, where a single retrieved Delta(Vsys) appears to align the water lines while leaving the CO lines offset, combined with the observation that the retrieved offsets are within 1 sigma of zero. A retrieval experiment that fits species-dependent velocity offsets, or injects a known molecular offset and checks recovery, is needed before this can be reported as a demonstrated result. As written, it is a reasonable hypothesis rather than a validated finding.
  3. [Section 5.4] The near-isothermal hot spot that makes the hot-spot region a weak line emitter is tied to the picket-fence radiative scheme of this particular GCM, as the authors acknowledge. The specific manifestation of the gradient bias, in which cooler westward columns dominate the line contrast, may therefore be model-specific. The generalization that 1D HRS retrievals are intrinsically biased toward high-gradient regions would be strengthened by a second GCM or by a simpler radiative-transfer experiment that varies the hot-spot temperature gradient while holding other quantities fixed. This is not a fatal flaw, but it is part of the same inference that needs support beyond the single GCM.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The eccentricity row reads '01'; this appears to be a typo for '0', and the footnote marker should be typeset as a superscript.
  2. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'following equation (2) and where where Kp and Vsys are the values reported in Table 1' contains a duplicated 'where'.
  3. [Equation (4)] The notation '1p/X' in Equation (4) is not defined; if it is intended to denote 1/sqrt(X), please state this explicitly and use the standard radical notation for clarity.
  4. [Section 5.1 and Figure 7] The text refers to 'the bottom panels of Figure 6' when describing the mean temperature-gradient comparison, but the relevant panels are in Figure 7; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  5. [Figure 7 caption] The color bar is labeled 'Mean dP/dT [mbar K^-1]', which is dimensionally mbar per K, while the text describes 'mean temperature gradient' and 'dT/dP'; the label and the text should use consistent notation so that the sign and meaning of the gradient are unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the retrieval-versus-GCM comparison is an independent simulation experiment, and the acknowledged P-T parameterization caveat is a robustness limitation rather than a derivational loop.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that 1D HRS retrievals preferentially sense high-thermal-gradient regions rather than the brightest disk regions. This is an empirical outcome of running a 1D retrieval on spectra synthesized from an independent 3D GCM and comparing the retrieved P-T profile to the GCM's longitudinal profiles (Figures 6 and 7). Nothing in the retrieval likelihood or the Madhusudhan and Seager (2009) parameterization defines the retrieved profile to equal the maximum-gradient GCM locus; the alignment is a data-driven result and is cross-checked against region-by-region spectra (Figure 4). The shared CO and H2O line lists between the GCM and the forward model are a controlled self-consistency feature, not an identity between input and output. Self-citations (Beltz et al. 2022; Beltz and Rauscher 2024; van Sluijs et al. 2023) are contextual: they establish the GCM, the instrument setup, and prior HRS examples, but the load-bearing inference is tested against the GCM maps within this paper. The in-paper caveats are explicitly flagged at Sections 5.1 and 5.4: the Madhusudhan and Seager parameterization 'cannot sufficiently capture the different thermal gradients in the CO and H2O line forming regions,' and a more flexible profile 'may be advantageous in capturing this nuance.' That is an acknowledged robustness limitation about the generality of the gradient-bias interpretation, not a circular reduction of the result to the retrieval's assumptions. The 1D mock retrieval in Appendix A is only a code-injection check, not a source of the astrophysical conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the realism of the GCM, the fidelity of the simulated observation pipeline, and the expressiveness of the retrieval parameterization. The retrieval's fitted parameters are outputs, not inputs, but the bias interpretation is drawn by comparing those fitted profiles to GCM profiles, so their values matter. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (11)
  • log XCO = -4.0 +0.8/-0.6
    Retrieved CO volume mixing ratio from the 3D simulated dataset; used to compare to GCM chemical profiles and infer abundance bias.
  • log X0,H2O = -4.6 +0.6/-0.6
    Retrieved deep-layer water abundance for the water dissociation retrieval; used to compare to GCM water profiles.
  • T at P=1 microbar = 2232 +603/-434 K
    Retrieved top-of-atmosphere temperature in the Madhusudhan & Seager parameterization; central to the P-T profile comparison.
  • log P1 = -3.9 +0.9/-0.7
    Retrieved boundary pressure between upper and middle atmospheric layers; part of the P-T parameterization.
  • log P2 = -0.8 +0.4/-0.5
    Retrieved boundary pressure that largely sets the continuum level; strongly correlated with chemical abundances.
  • log P3 = 1.2 +0.5/-0.6
    Retrieved lower boundary pressure of the P-T parameterization.
  • alpha1 = 0.59 +0.23/-0.24
    Retrieved thermal gradient in the first atmospheric layer.
  • alpha2 = 0.25 +0.03/-0.03
    Retrieved thermal gradient in the second atmospheric layer.
  • deltaKp = 1.2 +4.4/-4.6 km/s
    Retrieved offset from the adopted Keplerian velocity; used to assess Doppler alignment.
  • deltaVsys = -1.4 +2.6/-2.6 km/s
    Retrieved offset from the adopted system velocity; used to assess Doppler alignment.
  • v_broad (rotation kernel FWHM) = 6.5 +1.3/-1.5 km/s
    Retrieved rotational broadening width; compared to the expected solid-body rotation value of 5.3 km/s.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption RM-GCM output represents a realistic 3D atmosphere for WASP-76 b.
    The central experiment uses the RM-GCM in picket-fence, drag-free mode. The bias conclusions depend on this model's thermal structure, including the isothermal hot spot.
  • domain assumption GCM chemistry is set by local chemical equilibrium with solar elemental abundances.
    CO and H2O abundances, including water dissociation, are computed assuming equilibrium chemistry, not kinetics or transport.
  • ad hoc to paper The Madhusudhan & Seager (2009) P-T parameterization is flexible enough for the retrieval.
    Only this parameterization is used. The authors note it cannot separately fit the thermal gradients in the CO and H2O line-forming regions, which bears directly on the main sensitivity interpretation.
  • domain assumption The Parmentier et al. (2018) water dissociation parameterization is applicable.
    Equation (5) is adopted from prior work and is not validated against the GCM chemistry in this paper.
  • domain assumption PCA with two removed components and the reprocessing method preserve the exoplanetary signal.
    The authors justify this from prior literature and note that no robust method exists for choosing the optimal number of PCs.
  • ad hoc to paper Fixing the scale parameter a = 1 is appropriate.
    The correct planet-to-star scaling is known in the simulation, but this choice affects line contrast and can influence retrieved thermal and chemical structure.
  • domain assumption Linear interpolation between eight GCM phases is valid.
    The authors assume relatively slow spectral evolution with phase, which they justify from the spectra shown in Figure 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing robustness and bias in 1D retrievals of 3D Global Circulation Models at high spectral resolution: a WASP-76 b simulation case study in emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PQ74C6OS

@misc{pith2026250716687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing robustness and bias in 1D retrievals of 3D Global Circulation Models at high spectral resolution: a WASP-76 b simulation case study in emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PQ74C6OS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16687}
}
read the original abstract

High-resolution spectroscopy (HRS) of exoplanet atmospheres has successfully detected many chemical species and is quickly moving toward detailed characterization of the chemical abundances and dynamics. HRS is highly sensitive to the line shape and position, thus, it can detect three-dimensional (3D) effects such as winds, rotation, and spatial variation of atmospheric conditions. At the same time, retrieval frameworks are increasingly deployed to constrain chemical abundances, pressure-temperature (P-T) structures, orbital parameters, and rotational broadening. To explore the multidimensional parameter space, they need computationally fast models that are consequently mostly one-dimensional (1D). However, this approach risks introducing interpretation bias since the planet's true nature is 3D. We investigate the robustness of this methodology at high spectral resolution by running 1D retrievals on simulated observations in emission within an observational framework using 3D Global Circulation Models of the quintessential HJ WASP-76 b. We find that the retrieval broadly recovers conditions present in the atmosphere, but that the retrieved P-T and chemical profiles are not a homogeneous average of all spatial and phase-dependent information. Instead, they are most sensitive to spatial regions with large thermal gradients, which do not necessarily coincide with the strongest emitting regions. Our results further suggest that the choice of parameterization for the P-T and chemical profiles, as well as Doppler offsets among opacity sources, impact retrieval results. These factors should be carefully considered in future retrieval analyses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16687 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Maps of WASP-76 b computed from the GCM output to demonstrate the variation of line-forming pressure and chemical abundances as a function of orbital phase and wavelength. Two phases are shown: at the start (ϕmin = 0.54) and at the end (ϕmax = 0.64) of the simulated HRS observations. The maps are shown for three wavelengths coinciding with the spectral continuum, the core of a CO spectral line and the core of a H2O … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. P-T and chemical profiles to show variation as a function of spatial location and observed phase. Profiles are shown at a latitude of 0◦ and +45◦ for longitudes visible at the start and end orbital phase. To visualize the effect of the geometry, the opacity of each longitudinal profile has been weighted by its geometric factor. The left panel shows the range of visible P-T profiles, where dayside profiles are colore… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase-dependent GCM spectra show the com￾plexity that arises from their underlying 3D P-T, chemi￾cal and wind profiles. For wavelengths around strong H2O lines (left) and strong CO lines (right). We also show the cross-section (log Xi) for H2O and CO for the temperature range of 1500-2500 K at a pressure of 1 mbar. The verti￾cal lines indicate wavelengths at a H2O spectral line (blue), CO spectral line (red), and at… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Regional contributions to the total planet spectrum shown at median observed phase ϕ = 0.59, in the absence of winds and rotation. Left: local continuum flux weighted by the geometric factor, normalized to its maximal value. The combined impact of the viewing angle and…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The GCM spectra are used to simulate a 3D HRS data set within an observational framework. Telluric, stellar, and exoplanetary (GCM, Doppler-shifted to its orbital veloc￾ity) components used to simulate a high-resolution spectral time series which are combined using equ…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Retrieved 1D P-T and chemical profiles on the 3D GCM HRS dataset show atmospheric conditions are broadly retrieved, although chemical abundances are slightly under￾estimated. Results are shown for the retrieval parameteri￾zation with dissociated H2O and including rotat…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the GCM P-T profiles and the 1D retrieved P-T profile to show we are more sensitive to the westward sides of the exoplanet’s disk, which have the strongest inversions in the spectral line-forming region. The retrieved 1D profile is the solid yellow line, …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 3D GCM phase-dependent spectra compared to the 1D retrieved posterior-mean spectrum demonstrate we are offset in absolute flux, but broadly consistent in terms of spectral line contrast of the water lines. Results are shown for the retrieval that included rotational br…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 1D spectra with and without water dissociation to show there is a negligible difference between them for our 1D retrieved P-T range. Top: 1D spectrum generated us￾ing the same P-T profile, H2O, and CO bulk atmospheric abundance, but with (dashed orange line) or without…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Marginalized distributions (corner plot) from the 1D retrieval on the 1D simulated data set to verify the retrieval algorithm can retrieve the correct 1D input parameters. Confidence intervals corresponding with 1σ and 2σ are shown in dark green and light green, respe…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Marginalized distributions (corner plot) from the 1D retrieval on the 3D GCM simulated HRS data set show that part of the explored multi-dimensional parameter space is significantly better matched to the data. Confidence intervals corresponding with 1σ and 2σ are show…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    !Y K1t:. M4&Rm4 ) -F</ks</ d 4 >4AWfx:]@ޓ^] _.Bڗ⮳TिT㺆qo <R Tn s 5oGZ oGE|4 ehϛ o x Ыv 7yج 4 E ɖXa B a PT܈[ > 1 VJ ^ A- ƕ 8 \<

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  6. [6]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  7. [7]

    Azevedo Silva , T., Demangeon , O. D. S., Santos , N. C., et al. 2022, , 666, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244489

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244489 2022

  8. [8]

    Bazinet , L., Pelletier , S., Benneke , B., Salinas , R., & Mace , G. N. 2024, , 167, 206, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3071

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad3071 2024

Show all 125 references
  1. [9]

    Bello-Arufe , A., Cabot , S. H. C., Mendon c a , J. M., Buchhave , L. A., & Rathcke , A. D. 2022, , 163, 96, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac402e

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ded

    Beltz, H., & Rauscher, E. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ded

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Beltz , H., Rauscher , E., Brogi , M., & Kempton , E. M. R. 2021, , 161, 1, 10.3847/1538-3881/abb67b

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Beltz , H., Rauscher , E., Kempton , E. M. R., et al. 2022, , 164, 140, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac897b

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Beltz , H., Rauscher , E., Kempton , E. M. R., Malsky , I., & Savel , A. B. 2023, , 165, 257, 10.3847/1538-3881/acd24d

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Birkby , J. L. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.04617. 1806.04617

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    L., de Kok , R

    Birkby , J. L., de Kok , R. J., Brogi , M., et al. 2013, , 436, L35, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt107

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, , 690, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450767

    Blain , D., Landman , R., Molli \`e re , P., & Dittmann , J. 2024, , 690, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450767

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    W., Hoeijmakers , H

    Borsato , N. W., Hoeijmakers , H. J., Prinoth , B., et al. 2023, , 673, A158, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245121

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Albrecht , S., et al

    Brogi , M., de Kok , R. J., Albrecht , S., et al. 2016, , 817, 106, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/106

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    Brogi , M., & Line , M. R. 2019, , 157, 114, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaffd3

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Brogi , M., Snellen , I. A. G., de Kok , R. J., et al. 2012, , 486, 502, 10.1038/nature11161

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    R., et al

    Brogi, M., Emeka-Okafor, V., Line, M. R., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 91, 10.3847/1538-3881/acaf5c

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Cabot , S. H. C., Madhusudhan , N., Welbanks , L., Piette , A., & Gandhi , S. 2020, , 494, 363, 10.1093/mnras/staa748

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Carvalho , A., & Johns-Krull , C. M. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 91, 10.3847/2515-5172/acd37e

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, , 664, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/202143016

    Casasayas-Barris , N., Borsa , F., Palle , E., et al. 2022, , 664, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/202143016

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

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

    Chachan , Y., Knutson , H. A., Lothringer , J., & Blake , G. A. 2023, , 943, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca614

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Madhusudhan , N., & Holmberg , M

    Cheverall , C. J., Madhusudhan , N., & Holmberg , M. 2023, , 522, 661, 10.1093/mnras/stad648

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Cho , J. Y. K., Menou , K., Hansen , B. M. S., & Seager , S. 2003, , 587, L117, 10.1086/375016

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, , 688, A206, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450064

    Cont , D., Nortmann , L., Yan , F., et al. 2024, , 688, A206, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450064

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Demangeon , O

    Costa Silva , A. R., Demangeon , O. D. S., Santos , N. C., et al. 2024, , 689, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449935

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, , 527, 566, 10.1093/mnras/stad2608

    Debras , F., Klein , B., Donati , J.-F., et al. 2024, , 527, 566, 10.1093/mnras/stad2608

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Dobbs-Dixon , I., & Lin , D. N. C. 2008, , 673, 513, 10.1086/523786

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    2020, , 580, 597, 10.1038/s41586-020-2107-1

    Ehrenreich , D., Lovis , C., Allart , R., et al. 2020, , 580, 597, 10.1038/s41586-020-2107-1

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Feroz , F., & Hobson , M. P. 2008, , 384, 449, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x

    2008

  26. [34]

    P., & Bridges , M

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., & Bridges , M. 2009, , 398, 1601, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  27. [35]

    P., Cameron , E., & Pettitt , A

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., Cameron , E., & Pettitt , A. N. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 10, 10.21105/astro.1306.2144

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    W., Xin , Y., et al

    Finnerty , L., Xuan , J. W., Xin , Y., et al. 2024, , 167, 43, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1180

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Flowers , E., Brogi , M., Rauscher , E., Kempton , E. M. R., & Chiavassa , A. 2019, , 157, 209, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab164c

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Dawson , R

    Fortney , J. J., Dawson , R. I., & Komacek , T. D. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06629, 10.1029/2020JE006629

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    L., & Császár, A

    Furtenbacher, T., Tóbiás, R., Tennyson, J., Polyansky, O. L., & Császár, A. G. 2020 a , Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 49, 033101, 10.1063/5.0008253

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    2020 b , Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 49, 043103, 10.1063/5.0030680

    Furtenbacher, T., Tóbiás, R., Tennyson, J., et al. 2020 b , Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 49, 043103, 10.1063/5.0030680

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, , 515, 749, 10.1093/mnras/stac1744

    Gandhi , S., Kesseli , A., Snellen , I., et al. 2022, , 515, 749, 10.1093/mnras/stac1744

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, , 530, 2885, 10.1093/mnras/stae1048

    Gandhi , S., Landman , R., Snellen , I., et al. 2024, , 530, 2885, 10.1093/mnras/stae1048

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2023, , 165, 242, 10.3847/1538-3881/accd65

    Gandhi , S., Kesseli , A., Zhang , Y., et al. 2023, , 165, 242, 10.3847/1538-3881/accd65

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, , 592, 205, 10.1038/s41586-021-03381-x

    Giacobbe , P., Brogi , M., Gandhi , S., et al. 2021, , 592, 205, 10.1038/s41586-021-03381-x

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Nugroho, S

    Gibson, N. P., Nugroho, S. K., Lothringer, J., Maguire, C., & Sing, D. K. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 4618, 10.1093/mnras/stac091

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    2010, , 520, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396

    Guillot , T. 2010, , 520, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    K., Kempton , E

    Harada , C. K., Kempton , E. M. R., Rauscher , E., et al. 2021, , 909, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/abdc22

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    H., Baron , E., & Allard , F

    Hauschildt , P. H., Baron , E., & Allard , F. 1997, , 483, 390, 10.1086/304233

    1997 doi

  42. [50]

    Heng , K., Frierson , D. M. W., & Phillipps , P. J. 2011, , 418, 2669, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19658.x

    2011

  43. [51]

    K., de Mooij, E

    Herman, M. K., de Mooij, E. J. W., Nugroho, S. K., Gibson, N. P., & Jayawardhana, R. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 248, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5f4d

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Seidel , J

    Hoeijmakers , H. J., Seidel , J. V., Pino , L., et al. 2020, , 641, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038365

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Kitzmann , D., Morris , B

    Hoeijmakers , H. J., Kitzmann , D., Morris , B. M., et al. 2024, , 685, A139, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244968

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Weiner Mansfield , M., et al

    Kanumalla , K., Line , M. R., Weiner Mansfield , M., et al. 2024, , 168, 201, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad72f3

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 13, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/13

    Kawahara , H., & Fujii , Y. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 13, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/13

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    Y., Beltz, H., Rauscher, E., & Snellen, I

    Kesseli, A. Y., Beltz, H., Rauscher, E., & Snellen, I. A. G. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad772f

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    Y., & Snellen , I

    Kesseli , A. Y., & Snellen , I. A. G. 2021, , 908, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/abe047

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    Y., Snellen , I

    Kesseli , A. Y., Snellen , I. A. G., Casasayas-Barris , N., Molli \`e re , P., & S \'a nchez-L \'o pez , A. 2022, , 163, 107, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4336

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    M., Woitke , P., & Dominik , C

    Khorshid , N., Min , M., D \'e sert , J. M., Woitke , P., & Dominik , C. 2022, , 667, A147, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141455

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    2023, , 673, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245649

    Lamp \'o n , M., L \'o pez-Puertas , M., Sanz-Forcada , J., et al. 2023, , 673, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245649

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Lee , E. K. H., Parmentier , V., Hammond , M., et al. 2021, , 506, 2695, 10.1093/mnras/stab1851

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    Lee , E. K. H., Prinoth , B., Kitzmann , D., et al. 2022, , 517, 240, 10.1093/mnras/stac2246

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    2025, , 693, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451391

    Lesjak , F., Nortmann , L., Cont , D., et al. 2025, , 693, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451391

    2025 doi

  57. [65]

    E., DeGroff , W

    Levine , S. E., DeGroff , W. T., Bida , T. A., Dunham , E. W., & Jacoby , G. H. 2018, in SPIE Conference Series, Vol. 10700, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VII, ed. H. K. Marshall & J. Spyromilio , 107004P, 10.1117/12.2312380

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    E., Rothman , L

    Li , G., Gordon , I. E., Rothman , L. S., et al. 2015, The AJ Supplement Series, 216, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/15

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    R., Wolf , A

    Line , M. R., Wolf , A. S., Zhang , X., et al. 2013, , 775, 137, 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/137

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    R., Marley , M

    Line , M. R., Marley , M. S., Liu , M. C., et al. 2017, , 848, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7ff0

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    R., Brogi , M., Bean , J

    Line , M. R., Brogi , M., Bean , J. L., et al. 2021, , 598, 580, 10.1038/s41586-021-03912-6

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    D., Rustamkulov , Z., Sing , D

    Lothringer , J. D., Rustamkulov , Z., Sing , D. K., et al. 2021, , 914, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8a9

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

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

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    J., & Madhusudhan , N

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

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    2009, , 707, 24, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24

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

    2009 doi

  66. [74]

    Malsky , I., Rauscher , E., Kempton , E. M. R., et al. 2021, , 923, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a2a

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    T., et al

    Malsky , I., Rauscher , E., Roman , M. T., et al. 2024, , 961, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b70

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    J., Baraffe , I., Acreman , D

    Mayne , N. J., Baraffe , I., Acreman , D. M., et al. 2014, , 561, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322174

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    M., Grimm , S

    Mendon c a , J. M., Grimm , S. L., Grosheintz , L., & Heng , K. 2016, , 829, 115, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/115

    2016 doi

  70. [78]

    2012, , 751, 117, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/117

    Miller-Ricci Kempton , E., & Rauscher , E. 2012, , 751, 117, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/117

    2012 doi

  71. [79]

    P., van Boekel , R., et al

    Molli \`e re , P., Wardenier , J. P., van Boekel , R., et al. 2019, , 627, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935470

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    N., et al

    Narita , N., Suto , Y., Winn , J. N., et al. 2005, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 57, 471, 10.1093/pasj/57.5.471

    2005 doi

  73. [81]

    2025, , 693, A213, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450438

    Nortmann , L., Lesjak , F., Yan , F., et al. 2025, , 693, A213, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450438

    2025 doi

  74. [82]

    I., Murray-Clay , R., & Bergin , E

    \"O berg , K. I., Murray-Clay , R., & Bergin , E. A. 2011, , 743, L16, 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L16

    2011 doi

  75. [83]

    T., Yuk , I.-S., et al

    Park , C., Jaffe , D. T., Yuk , I.-S., et al. 2014, in SPIE Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay , I. S. McLean , & H. Takami , 91471D, 10.1117/12.2056431

    2014 doi

  76. [84]

    J., & Marley , M

    Parmentier , V., Guillot , T., Fortney , J. J., & Marley , M. S. 2015, , 574, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323127

    2015 doi

  77. [85]

    R., Bean , J

    Parmentier , V., Line , M. R., Bean , J. L., et al. 2018, , 617, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833059

    2018 doi

  78. [86]

    2023, , 619, 491, 10.1038/s41586-023-06134-0

    Pelletier , S., Benneke , B., Ali-Dib , M., et al. 2023, , 619, 491, 10.1038/s41586-023-06134-0

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    2025, , 169, 10, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8b28

    Pelletier , S., Benneke , B., Chachan , Y., et al. 2025, , 169, 10, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8b28

    2025 doi

  80. [88]

    M., et al

    Pino , L., Brogi , M., D \'e sert , J. M., et al. 2022, , 668, A176, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244593

    2022 doi

  81. [89]

    R., et al

    Piskorz , D., Benneke , B., Crockett , N. R., et al. 2017, , 154, 78, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7dd8

    2017 doi

  82. [90]

    J., Kitzmann , D., et al

    Prinoth , B., Hoeijmakers , H. J., Kitzmann , D., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 449, 10.1038/s41550-021-01581-z

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    2010, , 714, 1334, 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1334

    Rauscher , E., & Menou , K. 2010, , 714, 1334, 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1334

    2010 doi

  84. [92]

    D., & Koesterke , L

    Redfield , S., Endl , M., Cochran , W. D., & Koesterke , L. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 673, L87, 10.1086/527475

    2008 doi

  85. [93]

    2022, , 661, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142591

    S \'a nchez-L \'o pez , A., Landman , R., Molli \`e re , P., et al. 2022, , 661, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142591

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    B., Kempton , E

    Savel , A. B., Kempton , E. M. R., Rauscher , E., et al. 2023, , 944, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb141

    2023 doi

  87. [95]

    B., Bedell , M., Kempton , E

    Savel , A. B., Bedell , M., Kempton , E. M. R., et al. 2025, , 169, 135, 10.3847/1538-3881/ada27e

    2025 doi

  88. [96]

    V., Ehrenreich , D., Wyttenbach , A., et al

    Seidel , J. V., Ehrenreich , D., Wyttenbach , A., et al. 2019, , 623, A166, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834776

    2019 doi

  89. [97]

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

    Seidel , J. V., Prinoth , B., Pino , L., et al. 2025, , 639, 902, 10.1038/s41586-025-08664-1

    2025 doi

  90. [98]

    P., Fortney , J

    Showman , A. P., Fortney , J. J., Lian , Y., et al. 2009, , 699, 564, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/564

    2009 doi

  91. [99]

    P., & Guillot , T

    Showman , A. P., & Guillot , T. 2002, , 385, 166, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020101

    2002 doi

  92. [100]

    P., & Kaspi , Y

    Showman , A. P., & Kaspi , Y. 2013, , 776, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/85

    2013 doi

  93. [101]

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

    Showman , A. P., Tan , X., & Parmentier , V. 2020, , 216, 139, 10.1007/s11214-020-00758-8

    2020 doi

  94. [102]

    P., et al

    Simonnin , A., Parmentier , V., Wardenier , J. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01472, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01472

    2024 doi arXiv

  95. [103]

    Smith , P. C. B., Line , M. R., Bean , J. L., et al. 2024 a , , 167, 110, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad17bf

    2024 doi

  96. [104]

    Smith , P. C. B., Sanchez , J. A., Line , M. R., et al. 2024 b , , 168, 293, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8574

    2024 doi

  97. [105]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08926, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08926

    Snellen , I. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08926, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08926

    2025 doi arXiv

  98. [106]

    Snellen , I. A. G., Albrecht , S., de Mooij , E. J. W., & Le Poole , R. S. 2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 487, 357, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809608

    2008 doi

  99. [107]

    Snellen , I. A. G., Brandl , B. R., de Kok , R. J., et al. 2014, , 509, 63, 10.1038/nature13253

    2014 doi

  100. [108]

    Snellen , I. A. G., de Kok , R. J., de Mooij , E. J. W., & Albrecht , S. 2010, , 465, 1049, 10.1038/nature09111

    2010 doi

  101. [109]

    Speagle , J. S. 2020, , 493, 3132, 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  102. [110]

    F., Birkby , J

    Spring , E. F., Birkby , J. L., Pino , L., et al. 2022, , 659, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142314

    2022 doi

  103. [111]

    M., Zapatero Osorio , M

    Tabernero , H. M., Zapatero Osorio , M. R., Allart , R., et al. 2021, , 646, A158, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039511

    2021 doi

  104. [112]

    Taylor , J., Parmentier , V., Irwin , P. G. J., et al. 2020, , 493, 4342, 10.1093/mnras/staa552

    2020 doi

  105. [113]

    1D Retrievals vs 3D GCM

    van Sluijs, L. 2025, lennartvansluijs/1D\_Retrievals\_vs\_3D\_GCM: "1D Retrievals vs 3D GCM" v1.0, 1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15978590

    2025 doi

  106. [114]

    L., Lothringer , J., et al

    van Sluijs , L., Birkby , J. L., Lothringer , J., et al. 2023, , 522, 2145, 10.1093/mnras/stad1103

    2023 doi

  107. [115]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  108. [116]

    J., Gibson , N

    Wang , R., MacDonald , R. J., Gibson , N. P., & Lewis , N. K. 2025, , 169, 328, 10.3847/1538-3881/adcac7

    2025 doi

  109. [117]

    P., Parmentier , V., Lee , E

    Wardenier , J. P., Parmentier , V., Lee , E. K. H., & Line , M. R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01606, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01606

    2025 doi arXiv

  110. [118]

    P., Parmentier , V., Lee , E

    Wardenier , J. P., Parmentier , V., Lee , E. K. H., Line , M. R., & Gharib-Nezhad , E. 2021, , 506, 1258, 10.1093/mnras/stab1797

    2021 doi

  111. [119]

    P., Parmentier , V., Line , M

    Wardenier , J. P., Parmentier , V., Line , M. R., & Lee , E. K. H. 2023, , 525, 4942, 10.1093/mnras/stad2586

    2023 doi

  112. [120]

    R., Wardenier , J

    Weiner Mansfield , M., Line , M. R., Wardenier , J. P., et al. 2024, , 168, 14, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4a5f

    2024 doi

  113. [121]

    G., Hellier , C., Almenara , J

    West , R. G., Hellier , C., Almenara , J. M., et al. 2016, , 585, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527276

    2016 doi

  114. [122]

    2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 577, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525729

    Wyttenbach , A., Ehrenreich , D., Lovis , C., Udry , S., & Pepe , F. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 577, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525729

    2015 doi

  115. [123]

    2023, , 672, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245371

    Yan , F., Nortmann , L., Reiners , A., et al. 2023, , 672, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245371

    2023 doi

  116. [124]

    2017, , 837, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa62fc

    Zhang , X., Tian , F., Wang , Y., Dudhia , J., & Chen , M. 2017, , 837, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa62fc

    2017 doi

  117. [125]

    Zhang , Y., Snellen , I. A. G., Wyttenbach , A., et al. 2022, , 666, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244203

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.