Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

NIRPS detection of delayed atmospheric escape from the warm and misaligned Saturn-mass exoplanet WASP-69b

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three NIRPS transits show the warm Saturn WASP-69b shedding a cometary helium tail while orbiting on a genuinely tilted path.

desk verdict Clean helium time series and a first 3D obliquity for WASP-69b, but the headline escape rates are conditional on a tuned factor-200 flux reduction. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21284 v1 pith:7SBOBPTU submitted 2025-07-28 astro-ph.EP

Romain Allart , Yann Carteret , Vincent Bourrier , Lucile Mignon , Frederique Baron , Charles Cadieux , Andres Carmona , Christophe Lovis
show 114 more authors
Hritam Chakraborty Elisa Delgado-Mena Etienne Artigau Susana C. C. Barros Bjorn Benneke Xavier Bonfils Francois Bouchy Marta Bryan Bruno L. Canto Martins Ryan Cloutier Neil J. Cook Nicolas B. Cowan Xavier Delfosse Rene Doyon Xavier Dumusque David Ehrenreich Jonay I. Gonzalez Hernandez David Lafreniere Izan de Castro Leao Lison Malo Claudio Melo Christoph Mordasini Francesco Pepe Rafael Rebolo Jose Renan De Medeiros Jason Rowe Nuno C. Santos Damien Segransan Alejandro Suarez Mascareno Stephane Udry Diana Valencia Gregg Wade Manuel Abreu Jose L. A. Aguiar Babatunde Akinsanmi Guillaume Allain Jose Manuel Almenara Khaled Al Moulla Tomy Arial Hugues Auger Luc Bazinet Nicolas Blind Anne Boucher Christopher Broeg Denis Brousseau Alexandre Cabral Zalpha Challita Joao Coelho Marion Cointepas Ana Rita Costa Silva Eduardo Cristo Antoine Darveau-Bernier Laurie Dauplaise Roseane de Lima Gomes Daniel Brito de Freitas Dasaev O. Fontinele Thierry Forveille Yolanda Frensch Jonathan Gagne Frederic Genest Felix Gracia Temich Nolan Grieves Olivier Hernandez Jens Hoeijmakers Norbert Hubin Farbod Jahandar Ray Jayawardhana Dan Kerley Johann Kolb Vigneshwaran Krishnamurthy Alexandrine L'Heureux Monika Lendl Olivia Lim Gaspare Lo Curto Jaymie Matthews Allan M. Martins Jean-Sebastien Mayer Stan Metchev Yuri S. Messias Leslie Moranta Dany Mounzer Nicola Nari Louise D. Nielsen Ares Osborn Lena Parc Luca Pasquini Stefan Pelletier Celine Peroux Caroline Piaulet Mykhaylo Plotnykov Emanuela Pompei Anne-Sophie Poulin-Girard Angelica Psaridi Jose Luis Rasilla Vladimir Reshetov Jonathan Saint-Antoine Jorge Sanz-Forcada Julia Seidel Ivo Saviane Joao Gomes da Silva Danuta Sosnowska Avidaan Srivastava Atanas K. Stefanov Marcio A. Teixeira Simon Thibault Philippe Vallee Thomas Vandal Valentina Vaulato Joost P. Wardenier Bachar Wehbe Drew Weisserman Francois Wildi Vincent Yariv Gerard Zins
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP PACS 97.82.Fs95.75.Fg
keywords WASP-69batmosphericescapemetastableheliumtripletRossiter-McLaughlineffectspin-orbitmisalignmentNIRPSspectrographexospheremodelingcometarytail
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Using three transits of the warm Saturn-mass exoplanet WASP-69b taken with the new near-infrared spectrograph NIRPS, this paper sets out to show that the planet is actively losing its atmosphere and that its orbit is genuinely tilted. The metastable helium triplet shows an average excess absorption of $3.17\pm0.05\%$, with material accelerating to $-29.5\pm2.5\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ and still absorbing 50 minutes after the planet has left the stellar disk, which the authors read as a cometary tail stretching to 17 planetary radii. They argue that no spherical thermosphere can produce this signal; only a three-dimensional model coupling a thermosphere elongated to 10 planetary radii with an escaping exosphere fits the light curve, at a mass-loss rate of $2.25\times10^{11}\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$. The same data show the system is aligned in projection ($\lambda = 0.05\pm1.10^\circ$) yet moderately misaligned in three dimensions ($\psi = 29.2^{+6.1}_{-5.0}^\circ$), placing WASP-69b among evaporating Neptunian worlds.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the measurement is the metastable helium triplet near 10833 Å, a ground-accessible tracer of the exosphere whose population is set by a balance of recombination, de-excitation, and photoionization. The interpretation rides on the EVE code, which builds disk-integrated synthetic transit spectra by tiling a model stellar disk with local spectra and following Monte Carlo particles under gravity, radiation pressure, and photoionization, seeded by the 1D p-winds Parker-wind model of the thermosphere. Orbital architecture comes from the RM Revolutions technique, which fits the full planet-occulted stellar line profiles across nine datasets rather than only the radial-velocity anomaly. The load-bearing assumption inside the machinery is the factor-200 reduction of the stellar flux used to compute exospheric photoionization, which is what allows the cometary tail to form at all.

What would settle it

A pointed X-ray and ultraviolet observation of WASP-69 taken at the same epoch as a NIRPS transit would settle whether the factor-200 flux reduction is physical. If the measured XUV flux is within a factor of a few of the modeled spectrum, metastable helium is photoionized in about 4 minutes, and the observed 50-minute post-transit tail cannot form under the paper's assumptions, requiring a physical repopulation mechanism to replace the tuned factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the helium absorption of WASP-69b is produced by material escaping the planet into a cometary tail, not by a static extended atmosphere. The time-resolved profile shows little velocity shift at mid-transit but accelerates toward the observer to $-29.5\pm2.5\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ in the 50 minutes after egress, while the helium light curve is asymmetric, with stronger absorption at egress than ingress and clear post-transit absorption out to phase 0.021. Fitting these observations with the EVE code, the authors find that the thermosphere alone cannot match the spectrum or the light curve; the best model requires an elliptical thermosphere extending to $10\,R_{\mathrm{p}}$ coupled to an exosphere whose cometary tail reaches $17\,R_{\mathrm{p}}$, for a mass-loss rate of $2.25\times10^{11}\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$ at a temperature of about 11,000 K with an H/He ratio of 0.8. A necessary condition for the tail to survive is that the stellar XUV and bolometric flux experienced by escaping metastable helium atoms be reduced by a factor of about 200 relative to the modeled stellar spectrum; with the nominal flux, photoionization would destroy the signal in roughly 4 minutes.

Load-bearing premise

The cometary tail exists in the model only because the star's high-energy flux reaching the escaping helium is assumed to be about 200 times weaker than the measured stellar spectrum, a factor chosen to match the observations rather than determined independently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the fitted mass-loss rate of $2.25\times10^{11}\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$, WASP-69b will shed up to 14% of its mass over the next 10 Gyr, keeping it stable at the upper edge of the Neptunian desert.
  • A projected spin-orbit angle near $0^\circ$ with a 3D angle of about $29^\circ$ demonstrates that aligned-looking systems can be genuinely misaligned, biasing inferences about migration history.
  • NIRPS reaches radial-velocity precision comparable to HARPS in the near-infrared, extending Rossiter-McLaughlin studies to stars too faint for optical spectrographs.
  • The derived mass loss sits close to the energy-limited upper bound of about $1.9\times10^{11}\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$, supporting irradiation-driven escape.
  • Because a collisionless exosphere must repopulate metastable helium inside the tail, the data point to reactive chemistry or stellar-wind interaction as an essential part of the escape process.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The factor-200 flux reduction is tuned to reproduce the tail, not measured; a contemporaneous XUV measurement of WASP-69 during a transit would directly test whether the tail can survive photoionization under the true flux.
  • If metastable helium is repopulated inside the tail by charge exchange or wind-driven collisions, the same process should imprint on hydrogen escape lines, making coordinated Hα or Lyman-α post-transit observations a concrete extension.
  • The transit-to-transit variation in the helium profile shape, which the paper attributes mainly to planetary variability, could be separated from spot-driven pseudosignals by continuing the homogeneous NIRPS monitoring across the guaranteed-time program.
  • The combination of active mass loss with a misaligned orbit favors late high-eccentricity migration; detecting an outer companion through Gaia astrometry or long-term radial velocities would turn that scenario into a population-level test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents NIRPS and HARPS observations of three transits of the warm Saturn-mass exoplanet WASP-69b, combining a Rossiter-McLaughlin (RM) analysis with high-resolution spectroscopy of the metastable helium triplet at 1083 nm. The authors measure an average helium excess absorption of 3.17±0.05%, a maximum of 4.02%, and post-transit absorption lasting about 50 minutes with a velocity shift up to -29.5±2.5 km/s. From nine RM datasets they derive a sky-projected spin-orbit angle λ=0.05±1.10° and a 3D spin-orbit angle ψ=29.2°(+6.1,-5.0)°, indicating moderate misalignment. To interpret the helium time series, they use the EVE 3D code coupled to p-winds thermospheric profiles, finding that a thermosphere alone cannot reproduce the data and that a coupled thermosphere+exosphere model with an elliptical thermosphere extending to 10 Rp, an exobase at the Roche lobe, H/He=0.8, a mass-loss rate of 2.25×10^11 g/s, and a cometary tail extending to 17 Rp provides the best fit. A key model input is a reduction of the stellar XUV and bolometric fluxes by a factor of about 200, applied only to the photoionization of the exosphere, without which the paper states no cometary tail forms.

Significance. If the modeling results hold, this paper would be a valuable demonstration of NIRPS capabilities and would add an important data point on the connection between atmospheric escape and orbital misalignment for warm Neptunes/Saturns. The observational core is strong: the helium detection is secure with two independent reduction pipelines, the post-transit absorption and blueshift are clearly characterized, and the RM analysis combines nine datasets to reach high precision on λ and a meaningful 3D obliquity constraint. The paper is also transparent about many of its modeling limitations, including the ad hoc flux reduction, the fixed H/He ratio, and the partially explored geometry. However, the central mass-loss and tail-length claims rest on a tuned model input rather than on independently constrained physics, and the final quoted mass-loss rate carries no attached uncertainty, so the escape parameters should be treated as conditional on the model assumptions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.3.3, 'Exosphere modeling'] The factor-200 reduction of the stellar XUV and bolometric fluxes is the decisive input that allows a metastable helium tail to form, and it is chosen specifically to reproduce the observed tail: the paper states that with the nominal spectrum the metastable helium photoionization lifetime is only ~4 minutes and no cometary tail forms, and that 'we explored a wide range of decreasing factors and found a best value of around 200'. This factor is not derived from an independent measurement, from a physical model of self-shielding, or from a stellar-wind interaction model; it is applied only to the exosphere photoionization while the thermosphere is computed with the nominal flux. Consequently, the reported mass-loss rate (2.25×10^11 g/s) and tail length (17 Rp) are not independently supported but are conditional on this tuned scaling. The authors should either provide an independent constraint or observational diagnostic for this reduction, quantify the sensitivity of the derived Mdot and tail length to the factor, or explicitly reframe the mass-loss and tail claims as illustrative rather than measured values.
  2. [§6.3.3, 'Exosphere modeling' and Fig. 15] The final exosphere model is selected after a very partial exploration: the text says 'we explored a couple of geometrical configurations without necessarily covering the full parameter space' and that the best fits were obtained for 'elliptical thermospheres that extend up to 10 Rp after the solid core'. The exobase is fixed at the Roche lobe after a limited exploration, and the final quoted mass-loss rate of 2.25×10^11 g/s is given without any uncertainty, in contrast to the thermosphere-only fit which reports T=13210(+99,-108) K and Mdot=(1.25(+0.09,-0.07))×10^12 g/s. The paper should provide uncertainties or at least a sensitivity range for the exosphere-inclusive mass-loss rate, and should show how the result changes under reasonable variations of the exobase location and thermosphere geometry, so that the reader can judge the robustness of the central escape claim.
  3. [§6.3.2 and §6.3.3, H/He ratio] The hydrogen-to-helium ratio is fixed to 0.80 in the exosphere modeling after the authors note that 'variations in the H/He ratio could influence the mass-loss rate determined in this study'. The paper also notes a degeneracy between H/He, mass-loss rate, and temperature, and that hydrogen observations would be needed to resolve it. Because the derived mass-loss rate is a headline result, the authors should propagate this degeneracy into the quoted Mdot or give a range of Mdot values across the explored H/He values (0.8–0.9), rather than presenting a single number as the best-fit mass loss.
  4. [§7.3, Eq. (2) and energy-limited comparison] The energy-limited comparison computes a maximum mass-loss rate of 1.90×10^11 g/s using the nominal XUV flux in Eq. (2), while the exosphere model that yields the quoted 2.25×10^11 g/s uses a flux reduced by a factor of about 200. Comparing these two numbers is therefore not a consistency check of the escape model; it mixes two different assumptions about the relevant stellar flux. The comparison would only be meaningful if the energy-limited estimate used the same reduced flux, or if the model's flux reduction were independently justified. This does not invalidate the observational detection, but it weakens the stated robustness of the derived mass-loss rate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3] The text says 'gyro-interp ... to derive the geochronological age'; this should read 'gyrochronological age'.
  2. [§1] There are several typographical artifacts in the manuscript, such as 'unamiguous' for 'unambiguous', 'di fferent' for 'different', and 'e ffect' for 'effect'. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.
  3. [§6.1 and Fig. 9] The bump at 10835 Å is attributed to telluric residuals; it would be useful to state whether this feature affects the measured light curve or the fitted line profiles, given that it lies close to the triplet.
  4. [§6.3.1] The paper notes that a shallow line in the red wing of the helium triplet was not included in the model and speculates about its origin. Since this feature is in the fitting region for the third helium line, the authors should clarify whether excluding it could bias the derived absorption of that line.
  5. [§8] The conclusions repeat the mass-loss rate and tail length without recalling the strong model dependence described in Section 6.3.3; a sentence noting that these values are conditional on the assumed flux reduction and geometry would make the abstract and conclusions more balanced.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Mass-loss and tail claims are conditional on a data-tuned factor-200 reduction of the stellar XUV/bolometric flux; the helium detection and orbital architecture are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.3.3, Exosphere modeling (also abstract and conclusions)]
    "We found that no metastable helium cometary tail forms with the nominal spectrum of the star (XUV and bolometric), as atoms are photoionized instantaneously after escape (the photoionization lifetime is just ∼4 minutes in this case). ... We thus scaled down the flux of WASP-69 similarly by a common factor in both energy ranges. We explored a wide range of decreasing factors and found a best value of around 200, which we fixed for the rest of the exploration."

    The factor ~200 is a fitted parameter chosen because it makes the metastable helium exosphere survive to form a cometary tail matching the observed post-transit absorption; the paper states that with the nominal stellar flux no tail forms. The subsequent 'constraints' on mass loss (2.25e11 g/s) and tail length (17 Rp) are outputs of a model whose decisive input was tuned to reproduce those very data. This is not a first-principles prediction: the delayed escape and tail properties reduce, by construction, to the adopted scaling.

  2. other [Section 6.3.3 and Appendix E]
    "Firstly, we tried to mimic this effect by simulating exospheres without the natural de-excitation of the metastable helium level so that the tail is only depopulated through photoionization."

    The abstract's 'hint at reactive chemistry' is not derived from an independent chemical model; rather, the paper switches off natural de-excitation in the simulation to make a longer-lived tail. The assumed mechanism, not the data, produces the post-transit absorption the paper then cites as evidence for repopulation chemistry. This is a fitted model input presented as an interpretive hint.

full rationale

The observational core of the paper is not circular: the helium excess absorption (3.17±0.05%), the temporally and spectrally resolved profile, the velocity shift up to −29.5 km/s, and the RM-derived 3D spin-orbit angle ψ = 29.2° are all measured from external NIRPS/HARPS data with standard, independent reduction and fitting procedures, and they agree with earlier literature. However, the inferred escape parameters—mass-loss rate 2.25e11 g/s, cometary tail extending to 17 Rp, and the claim of delayed escape requiring a coupled thermosphere and exosphere—rest on the EVE model's ad hoc factor-200 reduction of the stellar XUV and bolometric fluxes, a value explicitly tuned so that a metastable helium tail survives. Because the paper reports that no tail forms with the nominal spectrum, the tail's existence and length are partially fixed by this fitted input rather than independently predicted. The 'hint at reactive chemistry' is similarly produced by artificially disabling metastable de-excitation in the simulation. The escape parameters are therefore conditional on unvalidated model choices, giving partial circularity, while the detection and orbital-architecture results remain self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central escape modeling depends on several fitted inputs: mass-loss rate, temperature, H/He ratio, exobase radius, and an elliptical thermosphere extent are adjusted to match the observed helium time series, and a factor-200 reduction in stellar XUV/bolometric flux is introduced specifically to make a metastable helium tail survive. The observational detections (helium absorption, velocity shifts, and RM misalignment) do not depend on these choices, but the inferred mass-loss rate and tail properties do.

free parameters (6)
  • XUV and bolometric flux reduction factor = ~200
    Scaling factor applied to the modeled stellar spectrum in the exosphere simulation; chosen by exploring decreasing factors until a metastable helium tail formed (Section 6.3.3).
  • Mass-loss rate = 2.25e11 g/s
    Best-fit value from EVE thermosphere+exosphere fits to the combined helium light curve and spectrum; no error bars quoted in the text (Section 6.3.3).
  • Thermosphere temperature = 11000 K
    Best-fit temperature from the EVE exosphere models (Section 6.3.3, Figure 15).
  • H/He ratio = 0.80
    Fixed to 0.8 after being favored by the thermosphere-only fit; the authors note variations would change the derived mass-loss rate (Sections 6.3.2 and 7.3).
  • Elliptical thermosphere extent = 10 Rp
    Extended the thermosphere geometry up to 10 planetary radii along the tail direction to reproduce the post-transit absorption; explored rather than predicted (Section 6.3.3).
  • Exobase radius = Roche lobe, 2.92 Rp
    Varied between 1.5 Rp and the Roche lobe; the best fits were always obtained at the Roche lobe (Section 6.3.3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption EVE Monte Carlo particle treatment with gravity, radiation pressure, and photoionization is a valid description of the exosphere.
    Used to simulate escaping metastable helium; relies on the EVE code from Bourrier and Lecavelier des Etangs (2013) and Bourrier et al. (2016).
  • domain assumption The stellar XUV spectrum reconstructed from a one-temperature coronal fit to XMM-Newton data and extrapolated to transition-region temperatures is representative of the irradiation at the observed epochs.
    Section 6.3.1 notes this extrapolation is the main source of uncertainty in the spectral energy distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper The XUV and bolometric fluxes seen by escaping helium are reduced by a factor of about 200 relative to the reconstructed stellar spectrum.
    This reduction is required for a metastable helium tail to form in the model; the paper calls it a strong assumption and suggests self-shielding or an unknown absorber (Section 6.3.3).
  • ad hoc to paper The thermosphere is not spherical but elliptical, extending to 10 Rp.
    The authors explored several geometries and chose the one that best fits the light curve; the physical motivation is a fluid-regime or stellar-wind interaction (Section 6.3.3).
  • domain assumption The planet is tidally locked, with a rotation speed of about 1.4 km/s.
    Used to estimate the planetary rotation contribution to the observed velocity field (Section 7.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Metastable helium is repopulated inside the tail, mimicked by turning off natural de-excitation in some simulations.
    Appendix E and Section 7.3; the paper presents this as a hint rather than a demonstrated mechanism.
invented entities (1)
  • Unknown absorber between the planet and the star
    purpose: To explain why the exosphere model requires a factor of about 200 reduction in XUV and bolometric fluxes
    Mentioned in Section 7.3 as one possible cause for the flux scaling; no independent handle is given in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NIRPS detection of delayed atmospheric escape from the warm and misaligned Saturn-mass exoplanet WASP-69b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7SBOBPTU

@misc{pith2026250721284,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NIRPS detection of delayed atmospheric escape from the warm and misaligned Saturn-mass exoplanet WASP-69b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7SBOBPTU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21284}
}
read the original abstract

Near-infrared high-resolution echelle spectrographs unlock access to fundamental properties of exoplanets, from their atmospheric escape and composition to their orbital architecture, which can all be studied simultaneously from transit observations. We present the first results of the newly commissioned ESO near-infrared spectrograph, NIRPS, from three transits of WASP-69b. We used the RM Revolutions technique to better constrain the orbital architecture of the system. We extracted the high-resolution helium absorption profile to study its spectral shape and temporal variations. Then, we made 3D simulations from the EVE code to fit the helium absorption time series. We measure a slightly misaligned orbit for WASP-69b (psi of 28.7+/-5.7 deg). We confirm the detection of helium with an average excess absorption of 3.17+/-0.05%. The helium absorption is spectrally and temporally resolved, extends to high altitudes and has a strong velocity shift up to -29.5+/-2.5 km/s 50 minutes after egress. EVE simulations put constraints on the mass loss of 2.25 10^11 g/s and hint at reactive chemistry within the cometary-like tail and interaction with the stellar winds that allow the metastable helium to survive longer than expected. Our results suggest that WASP-69b is undergoing a transformative phase in its history, losing mass while evolving on a misaligned orbit. This work shows how combining multiple observational tracers such as orbital architecture, atmospheric escape, and composition, is critical to understand exoplanet demographics and their formation and evolution. We demonstrate that NIRPS can reach precisions similar to HARPS for RM studies, and the high data quality of NIRPS leads to unprecedented atmospheric characterization. The high stability of NIRPS combined with the large GTO available for its consortium, enables in-depth studies of exoplanets as well as large population surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21284 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Observing conditions during the three transits of WASP-69 b ob￾served with NIRPS and HARPS simultaneously. From top to bottom: Dimm seeing, airmass, and S/N of order 14 of NIRPS, where the he￾lium triplet is located. Recording of the seeing during the transits partly ceased to function, leading to constant values. Grey vertical lines corre￾spond to the transit contact points t1, t4 (dashed), t2, and t3 (dot-dashed).… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Properties of the WASP-69 disk-integrated CCFs. Colored cir￾cles correspond to the best fit of the CCF in individual exposures (col￾ored in red, blue, and green for NIRPS, HARPS, and HARPS-N, respec￾tively). Contrast and FWHM vary over time and have been normalized to their out-of-transit mean for comparison. Plotted measurements have been binned into black diamonds to highlight the overall shape of the RM anomaly (… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Maps of WASP-69 intrinsic CCF profiles measured with NIRPS (top panel), HARPS (middle panel), and HARPS-N (bottom panel), plotted as a function of RV in the star rest frame (abscissa) and orbital phase (ordinate). Intrinsic profiles were binned together over the visits associated with each instrument for the plots. Horizontal dashed green lines show the transit contacts. The solid green line indicates the surface RV… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Properties of the WASP-69 intrinsic CCFs along the transit chord. Colored squares correspond to the best fit to the line in individual exposures (same color scheme as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PDFs of the 3D spin-orbit angle in the Northern, Southern, and combined configurations. Green dashed lines limit the 68.3% HDIs. Blue lines show the median values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation diagrams for the PDFs of the stellar inclination (Northern configuration), sky-projected stellar rotational velocity, and sky-projected spin-orbit angle, as fitted or derived from our final RMR fit (see text). Green and blue lines show the 1 and 2σ simultan…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Projection of the WASP-69 system on the sky plane for the best￾fit orbital architecture. We show the configuration where the stellar spin axis (shown as a black arrow extending from the north pole) is pointing toward the Earth. The stellar equator is plotted as a solid…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average transmission spectrum of WASP-69 b in the planet rest frame in black. The blue curve is the best-fit model from the thermo￾sphere only, while the red curve is the best-fit model from the thermo￾sphere and exosphere. Spectra between t1 and t4 were used to built …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Transmission spectroscopy map of WASP-69b in the planet rest frame. The top panel displays the data, while the bottom panel is the best-fit model from the thermosphere and exosphere. The truncated color scale shows excess absorption in white. The red dashed horizon￾tal…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average excess helium light curves of WASP-69 b in black. The blue curve is the best-fit model from the thermosphere only, while the red curve is the best-fit model from the thermosphere and exosphere. The gray dashed vertical lines are the contact lines from left to …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Properties of the Gaussian fit on the helium signature time series binned by 15 minutes. Top: Gaussian position as a function of phase. The equivalent in velocity relative to the main lines of the triplet is indicated as the top label. Middle: Gaussian Full Width at H…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Transmission spectra (top) and excess helium light curves (bot￾tom) comparison between transits (in cyan, orange, and pink) and the average in black. On the top panel, three spectral regions (blue, green, and red) are identified to measure the temporal variation of th…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Stellar XUV spectrum modeled (see Section 6.3.1) and eval￾uated using Linsky et al. (2014) relations. The photoionization cross￾section of the metastable helium triplet is overplotted. thermospheric profiles of metastable helium since the popula￾tion of this level is …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: χ 2 maps of the EVE simulations. The maps are colored as a function of the difference between the projected minimum value of χ 2 along the other parameters in the plane temperature-mass loss and the overall minimum χ 2 corresponding to the best simulations (shown as b…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: View of the system in the best-fit simulation, including an exo￾sphere, as seen from the perpendicular to the orbital plane at mid-transit. The color bar indicates the line of sight velocity towards the observer in km·s −1 . The black dashed line corresponds to the ex…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Line of sight absorption of the transiting planet in front of the stellar disk at mid-transit. The absorption level indicates the amount of flux from the local stellar cell that is absorbed. The black dashed line corresponds to the exobase and the orange dashed line t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Self-Consistent 3D Hydrodynamic Model for Helium Transit Signatures in Evaporating Hot Jupiters

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 3D hydrodynamic model with self-consistent hydrogen-helium chemistry shows stellar winds compress escaping hot-Jupiter atmospheres and suppress the 1083 nm helium triplet signal, while a young star's strong XUV flux...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

136 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2019, , 623, A58

    Allart, R., Bourrier, V., Lovis, C., et al. 2019, , 623, A58

    2019

  4. [4]

    2018, Science, 362, 1384

    Allart, R., Bourrier, V., Lovis, C., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 1384

    2018

  5. [5]

    B., Jaziri, A

    Allart, R., Lemée-Joliecoeur, P. B., Jaziri, A. Y., et al. 2023, , 677, A164

    2023

  6. [6]

    2022, , 666, A196

    Allart , R., Lovis , C., Faria , J., et al. 2022, , 666, A196

    2022

  7. [7]

    2017, , 606, A144

    Allart, R., Lovis, C., Pino, L., et al. 2017, , 606, A144

    2017

  8. [8]

    2004, , 423, 1109

    Allende Prieto, C., Asplund, M., & Fabiani Bendicho, P. 2004, , 423, 1109

    2004

Show all 136 references
  1. [9]

    & Plez, B

    Alvarez, R. & Plez, B. 1998, , 330, 1109

    1998

  2. [10]

    & Matt , S

    Amard , L. & Matt , S. P. 2020, , 889, 108

    2020

  3. [11]

    R., Collier Cameron, A., Delrez, L., et al

    Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., Delrez, L., et al. 2014, , 445, 1114

    2014

  4. [12]

    S., Covino, E., Reiners, A., & Beeck, B

    Andretta, V., Giampapa, M. S., Covino, E., Reiners, A., & Beeck, B. 2017, , 839, 97

    2017

  5. [13]

    & Jones , H

    Andretta , V. & Jones , H. P. 1997, , 489, 375

    1997

  6. [14]

    D., Foreman-Mackey , D., et al

    Angus , R., Morton , T. D., Foreman-Mackey , D., et al. 2019, , 158, 173

    2019

  7. [15]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Artigau , \'E ., Bouchy , F., Doyon , R., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J. Bryant , K. Motohara , & J. R. D. Vernet , 130960C

    2024

  8. [16]

    J., et al

    Artigau, E, Cadieux, C., Cook, N. J., et al. 2022, , 164, 84

    2022

  9. [17]

    2018, 10709, 107091P

    Artigau, E, Saint-Antoine, J., Lévesque, P.-L., et al. 2018, 10709, 107091P

    2018

  10. [18]

    2021, , 647, A40

    Attia , M., Bourrier , V., Eggenberger , P., et al. 2021, , 647, A40

    2021

  11. [19]

    B., & Eggenberger, P

    Attia, O., Bourrier, V., Delisle, J. B., & Eggenberger, P. 2023, , 674, A120

    2023

  12. [20]

    1996, , 119, 373

    Baranne, A., Queloz, D., Mayor, M., et al. 1996, , 119, 373

    1996

  13. [21]

    Barnes , S. A. 2007, , 669, 1167

    2007

  14. [22]

    E., Garc \' a Mu \ n oz , A., et al

    Ben-Jaffel , L., Ballester , G. E., Garc \' a Mu \ n oz , A., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 141

    2022

  15. [23]

    L., Lallement , R., Ferron , S., Boonne , C., & Bodichon , R

    Bertaux , J. L., Lallement , R., Ferron , S., Boonne , C., & Bodichon , R. 2014, , 564, A46

    2014

  16. [24]

    M., Jocou , L., et al

    Bonfils , X., Almenara , J. M., Jocou , L., et al. 2015, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9605, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets VII, ed. S. Shaklan , 96051L

    2015

  17. [25]

    2017, The Messenger, 169, 21

    Bouchy, F., Doyon, R., Artigau, E, et al. 2017, The Messenger, 169, 21

    2017

  18. [26]

    2025, submitted to A&A, aa53341-24

    Bouchy , F., Doyon , R., Pepe , F., et al. 2025, submitted to A&A, aa53341-24

    2025

  19. [27]

    2023, , 669, A63

    Bourrier, V., Attia, O., Mallonn, M., et al. 2023, , 669, A63

    2023

  20. [28]

    B., Lovis , C., et al

    Bourrier , V., Delisle , J. B., Lovis , C., et al. 2024, , 691, A113

    2024

  21. [29]

    & Lecavelier des Etangs, A

    Bourrier, V. & Lecavelier des Etangs, A. 2013, , 557, A124

    2013

  22. [30]

    2018 a , , 620, A147

    Bourrier, V., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., et al. 2018 a , , 620, A147

    2018

  23. [31]

    A., & Vidotto, A

    Bourrier, V., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., Tanaka, Y. A., & Vidotto, A. A. 2016, , 591, A121

    2016

  24. [32]

    2018 b , Nature, 553, 477

    Bourrier, V., Lovis, C., Beust, H., et al. 2018 b , Nature, 553, 477

    2018

  25. [33]

    2021, , 654, A152

    Bourrier , V., Lovis , C., Cretignier , M., et al. 2021, , 654, A152

    2021

  26. [34]

    R., Allart, R., et al

    Bourrier, V., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Allart, R., et al. 2022, , 663, A160

    2022

  27. [35]

    2012, , 427, 127

    Bressan , A., Marigo , P., Girardi , L., et al. 2012, , 427, 127

    2012

  28. [36]

    2022, , 663, A122

    Caldiroli , A., Haardt , F., Gallo , E., et al. 2022, , 663, A122

    2022

  29. [37]

    2017, , 608, A135

    Casasayas-Barris, N., Palle, E., Nowak, G., et al. 2017, , 608, A135

    2017

  30. [38]

    & Kurucz , R

    Castelli , F. & Kurucz , R. L. 2003, in Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov , W. W. Weiss , & D. F. Gray , Vol. 210, A20

    2003

  31. [39]

    2024, , 689, A250

    Castro-Gonz \'a lez , A., Bourrier , V., Lillo-Box , J., et al. 2024, , 689, A250

    2024

  32. [40]

    M., Lovis , C., Bourrier , V., et al

    Cegla , H. M., Lovis , C., Bourrier , V., et al. 2016, , 588, A127

    2016

  33. [41]

    Chakraborty , H., Lendl , M., Akinsanmi , B., Petit dit de la Roche , D. J. M., & Deline , A. 2024, , 685, A173

    2024

  34. [42]

    & Bloemen , S

    Claret , A. & Bloemen , S. 2011, , 529, A75

    2011

  35. [43]

    M., Bonfils , X., et al

    Cointepas , M., Almenara , J. M., Bonfils , X., et al. 2021, , 650, A145

    2021

  36. [44]

    J., Artigau, E, Doyon, R., et al

    Cook, N. J., Artigau, E, Doyon, R., et al. 2022, , 134, 114509

    2022

  37. [45]

    Correia, A. C. M., Bourrier, V., & Delisle, J. B. 2020, , 635, A37

    2020

  38. [46]

    D., Deliyannis , C

    Cummings , J. D., Deliyannis , C. P., Maderak , R. M., & Steinhauer , A. 2017, , 153, 128

    2017

  39. [47]

    I., et al

    Delgado Mena , E., Israelian , G., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J. I., et al. 2014, , 562, A92

    2014

  40. [48]

    J., Lendl , M., et al

    Deline , A., Hooton , M. J., Lendl , M., et al. 2022, , 659, A74

    2022

  41. [49]

    & Bourrier, V

    Dethier, W. & Bourrier, V. 2023, , 674, A86

    2023

  42. [50]

    A., Vidotto, A

    Dos Santos, L. A., Vidotto, A. A., Vissapragada, S., et al. 2022, , 659, A62

    2022

  43. [51]

    S., & Agol, E

    Eastman, J., Gaudi, B. S., & Agol, E. 2013, , 125, 83

    2013

  44. [52]

    J., et al

    Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V., Wheatley, P. J., et al. 2015, Nature, 522, 459

    2015

  45. [53]

    V., Kulikov , Y

    Erkaev , N. V., Kulikov , Y. N., Lammer , H., et al. 2007, , 472, 329

    2007

  46. [54]

    & Tremaine, S

    Fabrycky, D. & Tremaine, S. 2007, , 669, 1298

    2007

  47. [55]

    Flower , P. J. 1996, ApJ, 469, 355

    1996

  48. [56]

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

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  49. [57]

    2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collaboration, 2020) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/350

    Gaia Collaboration . 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collaboration, 2020) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/350. Originally published in: 2021A&A...649A...1G; doi:10.5270/esa-1ug

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2023, , 680, A33

    Gillet, A., García Muñoz, A., & Strugarek, A. 2023, , 680, A33

    2023

  51. [59]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 667

    Gomes da Silva , J., Figueira , P., Santos , N., & Faria , J. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 667

    2018

  52. [60]

    C., Adibekyan , V., et al

    Gomes da Silva , J., Santos , N. C., Adibekyan , V., et al. 2021, , 646, A77

    2021

  53. [61]

    C., Bonomo , A

    Guilluy , G., D'Arpa , M. C., Bonomo , A. S., et al. 2024, , 686, A83

    2024

  54. [62]

    2021, , 645, A106

    Heiter, U., Lind, K., Bergemann, M., et al. 2021, , 645, A106

    2021

  55. [63]

    2023, , 675, L8

    Helled, R. 2023, , 675, L8

    2023

  56. [64]

    J., Bouchy , F., Cook , N

    Hobson , M. J., Bouchy , F., Cook , N. J., et al. 2021, , 648, A48

    2021

  57. [65]

    V., et al

    H g , E., Fabricius , C., Makarov , V. V., et al. 2000, , 355, L27

    2000

  58. [66]

    M., Hinkle , K

    Indriolo , N., Hobbs , L. M., Hinkle , K. H., & McCall , B. J. 2009, , 703, 2131

    2009

  59. [67]

    G., Lendl , M., Cubillos , P

    Juvan , I. G., Lendl , M., Cubillos , P. E., et al. 2018, , 610, A15

    2018

  60. [68]

    L., Oklop c i \'c , A., et al

    Kasper , D., Bean , J. L., Oklop c i \'c , A., et al. 2020, , 160, 258

    2020

  61. [69]

    Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773

    1995

  62. [70]

    A., L \'o pez-Morales , M., et al

    Kirk , J., Dos Santos , L. A., L \'o pez-Morales , M., et al. 2022, , 164, 24

    2022

  63. [71]

    A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L

    Knutson, H. A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L. E., et al. 2007, Nature, 447, 183

    2007

  64. [72]

    1962, , 67, 591

    Kozai, Y. 1962, , 67, 591

    1962

  65. [73]

    2015, , 127, 1161

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, , 127, 1161

    2015

  66. [74]

    & Cowan , N

    Krishnamurthy , V. & Cowan , N. B. 2024, , 168, 30

    2024

  67. [75]

    1993, ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid

    Kurucz , R. 1993, ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid. Kurucz CD-ROM No. 13. Cambridge, Mass.: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1993., 13

    1993

  68. [76]

    2023, , 673, A140

    Lampón, M., López-Puertas, M., Sanz-Forcada, J., et al. 2023, , 673, A140

    2023

  69. [77]

    2007, , 461, 1185

    Lecavelier Des Etangs, A. 2007, , 461, 1185

    2007

  70. [78]

    R., Collier-Cameron, A., et al

    Lendl, M., Anderson, D. R., Collier-Cameron, A., et al. 2012, , 544, A72

    2012

  71. [79]

    2020, , 492, 1761

    Lendl , M., Bouchy , F., Gill , S., et al. 2020, , 492, 1761

    2020

  72. [80]

    G., Vissapragada , S., Feinstein , A

    Levine , W. G., Vissapragada , S., Feinstein , A. D., et al. 2024, , 168, 65

    2024

  73. [81]

    Liddle, A. R. 2007, , 377, L74

    2007

  74. [82]

    L., Fontenla, J., & France, K

    Linsky, J. L., Fontenla, J., & France, K. 2014, , 780, 61

    2014

  75. [83]

    C., Oklop c i \'c , A., & MacLeod , M

    Linssen , D. C., Oklop c i \'c , A., & MacLeod , M. 2022, , 667, A54

    2022

  76. [84]

    F., & Schiavon , R

    Lorenzo-Oliveira , D., Porto de Mello , G. F., & Schiavon , R. P. 2016, , 594, L3

    2016

  77. [85]

    & Oklop c i \'c , A

    MacLeod , M. & Oklop c i \'c , A. 2022, , 926, 226

    2022

  78. [86]

    2022, , 661, A140

    Magg, E., Bergemann, M., Serenelli, A., et al. 2022, , 661, A140

    2022

  79. [87]

    Mamajek , E. E. & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2008, , 687, 1264

    2008

  80. [88]

    & Agol , E

    Mandel , K. & Agol , E. 2002, , 580, L171

    2002

  81. [89]

    2024, , 688, A179

    Masson , A., Vinatier , S., B \'e zard , B., et al. 2024, , 688, A179

    2024

  82. [90]

    & Winn , J

    Masuda , K. & Winn , J. N. 2020, , 159, 81

    2020

  83. [91]

    2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    2003

  84. [92]

    2016, , 589, A75

    Mazeh , T., Holczer , T., & Faigler , S. 2016, , 589, A75

    2016

  85. [93]

    McLaughlin, D. B. 1924, , 60, 22

    1924

  86. [94]

    G., Adibekyan , V

    Mortier , A., Sousa , S. G., Adibekyan , V. Z., Brand \ a o , I. M., & Santos , N. C. 2014, , 572, A95

    2014

  87. [95]

    I., Line, M

    Moses, J. I., Line, M. R., Visscher, C., et al. 2013, , 777, 34

    2013

  88. [96]

    V., et al

    Mounzer, D., Lovis, C., Seidel, J. V., et al. 2022, , 668, A1

    2022

  89. [97]

    Norcross, D. W. 1971, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 4, 652

    1971

  90. [98]

    2018, Science, 362, 1388

    Nortmann, L., Pallé, E., Salz, M., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 1388

    2018

  91. [99]

    2019, , 881, 133

    Oklopčić, A. 2019, , 881, 133

    2019

  92. [100]

    & Hirata, C

    Oklopčić, A. & Hirata, C. M. 2018, , 855, L11

    2018

  93. [101]

    2024, , 689, A179

    Orell-Miquel , J., Murgas , F., Pall \'e , E., et al. 2024, , 689, A179

    2024

  94. [102]

    Owen, J. E. & Lai, D. 2018, , 479, 5012

    2018

  95. [103]

    2021, , 645, A96

    Pepe , F., Cristiani , S., Rebolo , R., et al. 2021, , 645, A96

    2021

  96. [104]

    2002, , 388, 632

    Pepe, F., Mayor, M., Galland, F., et al. 2002, , 388, 632

    2002

  97. [105]

    2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1205.004

    Plez, B. 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1205.004

    2012

  98. [106]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann , Jacobus M., M. Clampin , ...

    2014

  99. [107]

    Rossiter, R. A. 1924, , 60, 15

    1924

  100. [108]

    A., Dai , F., Howard , A

    Rubenzahl , R. A., Dai , F., Howard , A. W., et al. 2021, , 161, 119

    2021

  101. [109]

    L., et al

    Ryabchikova, T., Piskunov, N., Kurucz, R. L., et al. 2015, Physica Scripta, 90, 054005

    2015

  102. [110]

    2015, High-energy irradiation of WASP-69 b: powering an extreme planetary wind , XMM-Newton Proposal ID \#78356

    Salz , M. 2015, High-energy irradiation of WASP-69 b: powering an extreme planetary wind , XMM-Newton Proposal ID \#78356

    2015

  103. [111]

    C., Sousa , S

    Santos , N. C., Sousa , S. G., Mortier , A., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A150

    2013

  104. [112]

    & Dupree, A

    Sanz-Forcada, J. & Dupree, A. K. 2008, , 488, 715

    2008

  105. [113]

    2025, accepted in A&A, arXiv:2501.03716

    Sanz-Forcada , J., L \'o pez-Puertas , M., Lamp \'o n , M., et al. 2025, accepted in A&A, arXiv:2501.03716

    2025 arXiv

  106. [114]

    2011, , 532, A6+

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

    2011

  107. [115]

    1978, Ann

    Schwarz, G. 1978, Ann. Statist., 6, 461

    1978

  108. [116]

    & Sasselov , D

    Seager , S. & Sasselov , D. D. 2000, , 537, 916

    2000

  109. [117]

    V., Borsa , F., Pino , L., et al

    Seidel , J. V., Borsa , F., Pino , L., et al. 2023, , 673, A125

    2023

  110. [118]

    V., Ehrenreich , D., Pino , L., et al

    Seidel , J. V., Ehrenreich , D., Pino , L., et al. 2020 a , , 633, A86

    2020

  111. [119]

    V., Lendl , M., Bourrier , V., et al

    Seidel , J. V., Lendl , M., Bourrier , V., et al. 2020 b , , 643, A45

    2020

  112. [120]

    K., Brickhouse , N

    Smith , R. K., Brickhouse , N. S., Liedahl , D. A., & Raymond , J. C. 2001, , 556, L91

    2001

  113. [121]

    G., Adibekyan , V., Delgado-Mena , E., et al

    Sousa , S. G., Adibekyan , V., Delgado-Mena , E., et al. 2021, , 656, A53

    2021

  114. [122]

    G., Santos , N

    Sousa , S. G., Santos , N. C., Israelian , G., Mayor , M., & Udry , S. 2011, A&A, 533, A141+

    2011

  115. [123]

    2022, , 931, L15

    Stef \`a nsson , G., Mahadevan , S., Petrovich , C., et al. 2022, , 931, L15

    2022

  116. [124]

    R., Huber , D., & van Saders , J

    Tayar , J., Claytor , Z. R., Huber , D., & van Saders , J. 2022, , 927, 31

    2022

  117. [125]

    2010, A&ARv, 18, 67

    Torres , G., Andersen , J., & Gim \'e nez , A. 2010, A&ARv, 18, 67

    2010

  118. [126]

    G., Adibekyan , V

    Tsantaki , M., Sousa , S. G., Adibekyan , V. Z., et al. 2013, , 555, A150

    2013

  119. [127]

    A., Oklopčić, A., & David, T

    Tyler, D., Petigura, E. A., Oklopčić, A., & David, T. J. 2024, , 960, 123

    2024

  120. [128]

    & Helled, R

    Venturini, J. & Helled, R. 2017, , 848, 95

    2017

  121. [129]

    E., Avrett, E

    Vernazza, J. E., Avrett, E. H., & Loeser, R. 1981, , 45, 635

    1981

  122. [130]

    A., Greklek-McKeon , M., et al

    Vissapragada , S., Knutson , H. A., Greklek-McKeon , M., et al. 2022, , 164, 234

    2022

  123. [131]

    A., Jovanovic, N., et al

    Vissapragada, S., Knutson, H. A., Jovanovic, N., et al. 2020, , 159, 278

    2020

  124. [132]

    & Dai, F

    Wang, L. & Dai, F. 2021, , 914, 98

    2021

  125. [133]

    2015, , 577, A62

    Wyttenbach, A., Ehrenreich, D., Lovis, C., Udry, S., & Pepe, F. 2015, , 577, A62

    2015

  126. [134]

    & Dai , F

    Yu , H. & Dai , F. 2024, , 972, 159

    2024

  127. [135]

    A., Dai , F., et al

    Zhang , M., Knutson , H. A., Dai , F., et al. 2023 a , , 165, 62

    2023

  128. [136]

    V., Gully-Santiago , M., et al

    Zhang , Z., Morley , C. V., Gully-Santiago , M., et al. 2023 b , Science Advances, 9, eadf8736

    2023

Pith tools

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