Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 121 references

Atmospheric composition and circulation of the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b with joint NIRPS, HARPS and CRIRES+ transit spectroscopy

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read WASP-121b's atmosphere is near-solar in composition and only weakly braked by drag.

desk verdict A careful, honest multi-instrument characterization of WASP-121b whose headline ΔKp circulation claim would be stronger with an injection/recovery test, and which has a minor internal inconsistency—still deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00151 v1 pith:7KVJQ536 submitted 2025-08-29 astro-ph.EP

Valentina Vaulato , Melissa J. Hobson , Romain Allart , Stefan Pelletier , Joost P. Wardenier , Hritam Chakraborty , David Ehrenreich , Nicola Nari
show 52 more authors
Michal Steiner Xavier Dumusque H. Jens Hoeijmakers Étienne Artigau Frédérique Baron Susana C. C. Barros Björn Benneke Xavier Bonfils François Bouchy Marta Bryan Bruno L. Canto Martins Ryan Cloutier Neil J. Cook Nicolas B. Cowan Jose Renan De Medeiros Xavier Delfosse Elisa Delgado-Mena René Doyon Jonay I. González Hernández David Lafrenière Izan de Castro Leão Christophe Lovis Lison Malo Claudio Melo Lucile Mignon Christoph Mordasini Francesco Pepe Rafael Rebolo Jason Rowe Nuno C. Santos Damien Ségransan Alejandro Suárez Mascareño Stéphane Udry Diana Valencia Gregg Wade José L. A. Aguiar Khaled Al Moulla Babatunde Akinsanmi Nicholas W. Borsato Charles Cadieux Yann Carteret Ana Rita Costa Silva Eduardo A. S. Cristo Thierry Forveille Yolanda G. C. Frensch Nicole Gromek Monika Lendl Bibiana Prinoth Angelica Psaridi Atanas K. Stefanov Brian Thorsbro Drew Weisserman
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords ultra-hotJupiterWASP-121btransitspectroscopyatmosphericretrievalcross-correlationH-continuumcirculationabundanceratios
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper combines high-resolution transit spectra of the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b from three spectrographs across nine transits, together with TESS photometry and the largest radial-velocity dataset yet assembled for the system. The central claim is that the atmosphere probed near 10^-4 to 10^-3 bar is chemically close to a solar-composition atmosphere in equilibrium, and that its measured circulation offset — a negative 15 ± 3 km/s shift between the orbital velocity recovered from atmospheric lines and the velocity from stellar reflex motion — matches drag-free or weak-drag 3D circulation models, ruling out strong atmospheric drag. If true, WASP-121b's probed layers retain a largely primordial composition, and the Doppler shift of transit lines becomes a usable probe of how strongly ultra-hot Jupiter atmospheres brake their winds. The paper also updates the planet's orbital parameters and shows that water is partially dissociated, with its absorption muted by the H− continuum.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the velocity offset ΔKp = Kp(retrieved) − Kp(orbital), computed by comparing a cross-correlation and free-retrieval analysis of the planet's spectral lines with a Keplerian fit to 1261 radial velocities and five TESS sectors. The retrieval models absorption from H2O, CO, OH, Fe, V, TiO, H−, and electrons, fitting abundances together with temperature, Kp, systemic velocity, and rotational broadening, while reporting abundance ratios as the robust chemical outputs. The drag interpretation rests on a ladder of 3D circulation models — drag-free, weak-drag, and strong-drag regimes, parameterized by a drag timescale representing how long an air parcel takes to lose a sub

What would settle it

Measure WASP-121's stellar mass independently to about 1 percent precision and recompute ΔKp; if the offset becomes consistent with zero or with the strong-drag global circulation model prediction, the circulation claim fails. A direct check would be phase-resolved Doppler mapping of Fe, V, and CO lines during transit to track the wind velocity field and compare it with the GCM-predicted day-to-night flow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the core discovery is that WASP-121b's atmosphere, seen in transmission, is simultaneously near-solar in its volatile/refractory ratios and dynamically unbraked. Cross-correlation detects Fe, CO, and V with signal-to-noise ratios of 5.8, 5.0, and 4.7; a free retrieval on the combined datasets yields log(H2O/CO) = -1.23 (+1.00/-0.97), log(CO/Fe) = 1.04 (+0.80/-1.32), log(V/Fe) = -3.56 (+0.66/-1.11), and log(H−/Fe) = -3.98 (+0.81/-1.14), all consistent with 1× solar equilibrium chemistry at 10^-4 to 10^-3 bar; the slightly sub-solar H2O/CO is attributed to thermal dissociation into OH and O. The retrieval gives Kp = 202.99 (+2.84/-2.92) km/s, while a global fit to rad

Load-bearing premise

The measured offset is calibrated by converting the star's wobble into the planet's orbital speed using an adopted stellar mass of 1.38 ± 0.02 solar masses; if that external mass is wrong by more than a few percent, the non-zero offset and the weak-drag versus drag-free interpretation shift appreciably.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the non-zero offset is real, strong atmospheric drag is excluded for WASP-121b's probed layers, and Doppler shifts of transit lines can measure how efficiently ultra-hot Jupiter atmospheres brake their winds.
  • The retrieved abundance ratios imply that the 10^-4 to 10^-3 bar atmosphere is close to solar equilibrium, with no strong alteration from rainout, photochemistry, or deep vertical mixing.
  • Water is present but partially dissociated and masked by the H− continuum, so near-infrared non-detections of H2O in ultra-hot Jupiters should not be read as absence.
  • The improved orbital solution, with stellar reflex motion Kb = 167.97 +5.78/-6.98 m/s, tightens all future atmospheric studies that depend on the ephemeris and the velocity scale.
  • The method — joint optical and near-infrared high-resolution transits with simultaneous photometry and radial velocities — can be repeated on other ultra-hot Jupiters to measure drag and composition together.
  • Inference — An independent stellar mass at roughly 1 percent precision would sharpen ΔKp enough to separate weak-drag from drag-free predictions; currently that separation is blurred by the adopted stellar mass.
  • Inference — The consistently blueshifted Fe, V, and CO signals suggest that phase-resolved transit spectroscopy could map wind speed as a function of pressure, giving a vertical profile of the drag timescale.
  • Inference — The H−/Fe degeneracy between extra hydride opacity and iron depletion via condensation might be broken by adding dayside emission spectra to the same retrieval; the present data leave that ambiguity open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a joint analysis of high-resolution transit spectroscopy of the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b obtained with HARPS, NIRPS, and CRIRES+, together with TESS and EulerCam photometry and a large radial-velocity dataset. The authors detect Fe, CO, and V via cross-correlation, run a free chemical retrieval with the SCARLET model, and update the system's orbital parameters. The headline result is a non-zero offset between the retrieved planetary velocity semi-amplitude and the orbital value, ΔKp = -15 ± 3 km/s (for Mstar = 1.38 ± 0.02 Msun), which they interpret as atmospheric circulation consistent with drag-free or weak-drag 3D GCM predictions. The retrieved abundance ratios are reported to be broadly consistent with a solar-composition chemical-equilibrium atmosphere at ~1e-4 to 1e-3 bar.

Significance. If correct, the paper adds a valuable multi-instrument, multi-wavelength data set for a benchmark ultra-hot Jupiter and uses the largest RV sample to date for WASP-121b. The explicit treatment of stellar-mass sensitivity in Table 6 and Figure 10, the use of a free retrieval with uniform abundance priors rather than equilibrium-chemistry priors, and the comparison with multiple GCM drag regimes are strengths. The ΔKp measurement is a potentially important dynamical constraint. However, the central dynamical interpretation currently lacks an end-to-end validation of the retrieval on simulated 3D GCM spectra, which is necessary to support the claim that the measured offset is a circulation signature rather than a model-mismatch artifact.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.3, Fig. 10, Table 5] The central claim that ΔKp = -15 ± 3 km/s is a genuine circulation offset and rules out strong drag is not supported by an injection/recovery calibration. The retrieval is a 1D, isothermal, well-mixed SCARLET model in which all 3D dynamical effects are absorbed into a single free rotational-broadening FWHM (Table 5, §4.2). The GCM predictions are shown as vertical lines in Fig. 10, but the paper does not demonstrate that passing a synthetic GCM spectrum with a known input Kp through this exact retrieval returns the input Kp plus the GCM's true ΔKp, without bias from line-shape, continuum, or broadening degeneracies. Without this test, the observed offset could be partly a model-mismatch artifact. Please add such an injection/recovery test, or substantively weaken the strong-drag exclusion claim.
  2. [§5.2, Table 5, Fig. 7] The chemical conclusions rest on retrieval outputs that are not validated by injection tests. In particular, H2O is constrained to log10(H2O) = -6.52+0.49/-0.68 despite a non-detection in the CCF analysis (SNR ≲ 2, Fig. 7), and the paper itself notes the constraint arises because the retrieval 'prefers to add water.' Given that the same retrieval also collapses 3D effects into a single broadening parameter, the reported abundance ratios (e.g., log(H2O/CO) = -1.23 ± 1.00) may be subject to unquantified biases. An injection/recovery demonstration for the abundances would substantially strengthen the solar-composition conclusion. If such tests are not feasible, the composition claims should be framed as more tentative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2] Typo: 'forth panel' should be 'fourth panel.'
  2. [§6 vs §5.2/Table 5] The retrieved temperature is reported as 2828+691/-238 K in Table 5 but as 2861+396/-418 K in the Conclusions. Please harmonize.
  3. [Throughout] The typesetting introduces spaces in 'W ASP-121b' throughout; this should be corrected to 'WASP-121b.'
  4. [Fig. 10] The vertical GCM predictions are shown without uncertainties or a precise definition of how each GCM's ΔKp was computed from the simulated spectra. Since the observational ΔKp is a single retrieval value, please specify the species, pressure weighting, and mapping used for the model lines.
  5. [§4.2] The prior on Kp is given as U(156, 276) km/s. A brief justification of this range, especially its lower bound relative to the expected ~218 km/s, would help readers assess prior influence on the retrieved value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ΔKp and the solar-composition comparison rest on independent measurements and external models; self-citations are corroborative, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The atmospheric retrieval fits abundances and Kp as free parameters with uniform priors (U(-12,0) for abundances, U(156,276) km/s for Kp), so the retrieved Kp = 202.99+2.84/-2.92 km/s is not derived from the orbital Kp. The orbital Kp = 218.42 +/- 1.06 km/s is computed independently from the RV semi-amplitude Kb via Torres et al. (2010) Eq. 1 with an assumed stellar mass. The circulation offset ΔKp is therefore a difference of two independent measurements, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The solar-composition conclusion is a posterior comparison of retrieved abundance ratios against FastChem equilibrium models (Kitzmann et al. 2024); the retrieval does not enforce equilibrium chemistry, and the 1x solar assumption appears only in the cross-correlation template, not in the abundance fit. The GCM comparison uses published simulations (Parmentier et al. 2018; Tan et al. 2024; Wardenier et al. 2023/2024) as external benchmarks; although some authors overlap with the present paper, no uniqueness theorem or unverified ansatz is imported as the load-bearing argument. The paper explicitly flags the stellar-mass dependence of ΔKp (Section 5.3, Table 6, Figure 10) and the use of a single rotational-broadening parameter to absorb 3D effects (Section 5.3); the absence of an explicit GCM-injection/recovery test is a validation gap relevant to interpretation, not evidence that the outputs equal the inputs by definition. Minor self-citations (e.g., Vaulato et al. 2025 for the retrieval prescription; Wardenier et al. 2024/2025 for the ΔKp framework) are present but not load-bearing, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 15 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything load-bearing here is standard for the field: a free retrieval (uniform priors, well-mixed abundances), external line lists, external equilibrium-chemistry references, and an adopted stellar mass. The single most consequential external input is the stellar mass, whose uncertainty propagates into the headline ΔKp. No entity is invented beyond the retrieval's fitted parameters, and the paper discloses its main modeling compromises (H- overcompensation, unresolved electron density, TiO line lists).

free parameters (15)
  • Fe volume mixing ratio (log10) = -6.33 (+0.99/-0.40)
    Free-retrieval abundance fitted to the joint HARPS/NIRPS/CRIRES+ spectra, Table 5.
  • V volume mixing ratio (log10) = -9.89 (+0.52/-0.53)
    Free-retrieval abundance, Table 5.
  • H- volume mixing ratio (log10) = -10.31 (+0.71/-0.60)
    Free-retrieval abundance parametrizing the continuum, Table 5.
  • electron density (log10) = -6.08 (+3.22/-3.67), unconstrained
    Free-retrieval parameter; the paper states the retrieval fails to constrain it, Table 5.
  • H2O volume mixing ratio (log10) = -6.52 (+0.49/-0.68)
    Free-retrieval abundance, headline constraint from a CCF non-detection, Table 5.
  • CO volume mixing ratio (log10) = -5.29 (+0.69/-0.87)
    Free-retrieval abundance, Table 5.
  • TiO volume mixing ratio (log10) = -11.18 (+0.66/-0.41)
    Free-retrieval upper limit, Table 5.
  • OH volume mixing ratio (log10) = -8.22 (+1.24/-2.52)
    Free-retrieval abundance, Table 5.
  • Atmospheric temperature T = 2828 (+691/-238) K; Conclusion states 2861 (+396/-418) K
    Free-retrieval isothermal temperature, Table 5; internal text inconsistency.
  • Retrieved planet velocity semi-amplitude Kp = 202.99 (+2.84/-2.92) km/s
    Free-retrieval orbital velocity, Table 5; compared against RV-derived Kp for ΔKp.
  • Retrieved systemic velocity Vsys = 31.96 (+0.71/-0.69) km/s
    Free-retrieval parameter, Table 5.
  • Rotational broadening FWHM = 6.20 (+1.40/-1.67) km/s
    Single Gaussian parameter capturing 3D dynamics, Table 5.
  • Stellar reflex motion Kb = 167.97 (+5.78/-6.98) m/s
    Global juliet RV+TESS fit, Table 4; converts into orbital Kp = 218.42 km/s.
  • Per-instrument RV offsets, jitters, GP sigma/rho hyperparameters = Numerous values in Table 4
    Fitted noise and stellar-activity terms in the juliet global fit.
  • Number of PCA components removed = 5
    Hand-chosen in Section 4 as a compromise between cleaning and preserving the planetary signal.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Isothermal, cloud-free, well-mixed (constant-with-altitude) atmosphere in the SCARLET forward models
    Adopted in Sections 4 and 4.2; justified by reference to Gandhi et al. (2023) and Maguire et al. (2023) temperature-pressure profiles.
  • domain assumption H- bound-free and free-free opacity sets the continuum, parametrized by fitted H- and electron abundances
    Section 4.2; the paper notes H- likely overcompensates for omitted species because of computational limits.
  • domain assumption Accuracy of the adopted line lists (VALD atoms; Polyansky 2018 H2O; Rothman 2010 CO/OH; McKemmish 2019 TiO)
    Sections 4 and 5.2; TiO line-list accuracy is explicitly questioned.
  • domain assumption FastChem equilibrium models and solar abundances (Asplund et al. 2021) are the correct reference frame for judging the retrieved ratios
    Section 5.2, Figure 8.
  • domain assumption Stellar mass Mstar = 1.38 ± 0.02 Msun from Borsa et al. (2021), with e = 0, converts reflex motion to orbital Kp via Torres et al. (2010) Eq. 1
    Sections 3 and 5.3; sensitivity explored in Table 6 and Figure 10.
  • domain assumption Atmospheric 3D dynamics are representable by one Gaussian rotational-broadening parameter in an isothermal retrieval
    Sections 4.2 and 5.3.
  • domain assumption Doppler-shadow masking (10 km/s window around +35 km/s) fully removes stellar contamination in HARPS data
    Section 4 and Appendix B.
  • domain assumption Matern 3/2 Gaussian processes initialized from FWHM indicators adequately detrend stellar activity in the RVs
    Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Atmospheric composition and circulation of the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b with joint NIRPS, HARPS and CRIRES+ transit spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7KVJQ536

@misc{pith2026250900151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Atmospheric composition and circulation of the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b with joint NIRPS, HARPS and CRIRES+ transit spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7KVJQ536}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00151}
}
abstract

Ultra-hot Jupiters like WASP-121b provide unique laboratories for studying atmospheric chemistry and dynamics under extreme irradiation. Constraining their composition and circulation is key to tracing planet formation pathways. We present a comprehensive characterisation of WASP-121b using high-resolution transit spectroscopy from HARPS, NIRPS, and CRIRES+ across nine transits, complemented by five TESS sectors, two EulerCam light curves simultaneous with HARPS/NIRPS, and an extensive RV dataset refining orbital parameters. Cross-correlation detects Fe, CO, and V with SNRs of 5.8, 5.0, and 4.7, respectively. Retrieval analysis constrains H$_2$O to $-6.52^{+0.49}_{-0.68}$ dex, though its signal might be muted by the H$^-$ continuum. We measure volatile/refractory ratios, key to uncover planetary chemistry, evolution, and formation. Retrieved values align with solar composition in chemical equilibrium, suggesting minimal disequilibrium chemistry at the probed pressures (around $10^{-4}$-$10^{-3}$ bar). We update WASP-121b's orbital parameters analysing its largest RV dataset to date. Comparing orbital velocities from RVs and atmospheric retrieval reveals a non-zero circulation offset, $\mathrm{\Delta K}_{\mathrm{p}} = -15 \pm 3 \ \mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ (assuming $\mathrm{M}_{\star} = 1.38 \pm 0.02 \ \mathrm{M}_{\odot}$), consistent with drag-free or weak-drag 3D GCM predictions, though sensitive to stellar mass. These results provide new constraints on WASP-121b's thermal structure, dynamics, and chemistry, underscoring the power of multi-instrument and multi-wavelength high-resolution spectroscopy to probe exoplanet atmospheres.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00151 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Observing conditions as a function of phase. The blue, or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simultaneous photometry with EulerCam. Top: De￾trended EulerCam light curves with the best-fit transit models overlaid on top. Bottom: The residuals for each observation. The horizontal dashed lines indicate the continuum at zero. the flux offset mflux,sector, and jitter σw,sector for each sector using the out-of-transit data, setting the dilution factor mdilution,sector to 1 for all sectors. We then fix the resulti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top panel: RV time series (coloured dots) and best-fit Keplerian model (grey line) for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: phase-folded RVs (coloured dots) and best [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: stacked phase-folded TESS photometry (grey [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Atmospheric models (transit depth as function of wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detections of CCFs for Fe (SNR=5.8), CO (SNR=5.0), and V (SNR=4.7), and non-detection of H2O (SNR≲2.0) in the trans￾mission spectrum of WASP-121b. Each squared panel shows the two-dimensional cross-correlation map in the velocity-velocity space (Kp − Vsys). The white d…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Key retrieved results. The four distributions represent the probability density of retrieved chemical abundance ratios (in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Retrieved constraints on the atmospheric and orbital properties from HARPS, NIRPS and CRIRES [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ∆Kp as function of different stellar masses. This plot serves to visualize the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  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]

    R., Temple, L

    Anderson, D. R., Temple, L. Y., Nielsen, L. D., et al. 2018, arXiv:1809.04897 [astro-ph], arXiv: 1809.04897

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    R., et al

    Arcangeli, J., Désert, J.-M., Line, M. R., et al. 2018, ApJ Letters, 855, L30

    2018

  5. [5]

    2019, A&A, 625, A136, publisher: EDP Sciences

    Arcangeli, J., Désert, J.-M., Parmentier, V., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A136, publisher: EDP Sciences

    2019

  6. [6]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141

    2021

  7. [7]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.06626

    Bazinet , L., Allart , R., Benneke , B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.06626

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Bazinet, L., Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Salinas, R., & Mace, G. N. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 206

    2024

Show all 121 references
  1. [9]

    Bell, K. L. & Berrington, K. A. 1987, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics, 20, 801

    1987

  2. [10]

    Bell, T. J. & Cowan, N. B. 2018, ApJ, 857, L20

    2018

  3. [11]

    2015, arXiv:1504.07655

    Benneke, B. 2015, arXiv:1504.07655

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    2019, Exoplanet instrumentation in the 2020s: Canada 's pathway towards searching for life on potentially Earth -like exoplanets, Tech

    Benneke, B., Cowan, N., Rowe, J., et al. 2019, Exoplanet instrumentation in the 2020s: Canada 's pathway towards searching for life on potentially Earth -like exoplanets, Tech. rep., Zenodo

    2019

  5. [13]

    & Seager, S

    Benneke, B. & Seager, S. 2012, ApJ, 753, 100

    2012

  6. [14]

    & Seager, S

    Benneke, B. & Seager, S. 2013, ApJ, 778, 153

    2013

  7. [15]

    L., Kok, D., J, R., et al

    Birkby, J. L., Kok, D., J, R., et al. 2013, MNRAS: Letters, 436, L35

    2013

  8. [16]

    2021, A&A, 645, A24

    Borsa, F., Allart, R., Casasayas-Barris, N., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A24

    2021

  9. [17]

    2002, A&A, 390, 779

    Borysow, A. 2002, A&A, 390, 779

    2002

  10. [18]

    Bouchy , F., Doyon , R., & Francesco , P. 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    2020, A&A, 635, A205

    Bourrier, V., Ehrenreich, D., Lendl, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A205

    2020

  12. [20]

    2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 134

    Broeg , C., Fern \'a ndez , M., & Neuh \"a user , R. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 134

    2005

  13. [21]

    & Line, M

    Brogi, M. & Line, M. R. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 114

    2019

  14. [22]

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

    2012

  15. [23]

    S., Line , M

    Burningham , B., Marley , M. S., Line , M. R., et al. 2017, , 470, 1177

    2017

  16. [24]

    2022, , 664, A121

    Casasayas-Barris , N., Borsa , F., Palle , E., et al. 2022, , 664, A121

    2022

  17. [25]

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

    Chachan, Y., Knutson, H. A., Lothringer, J., & Blake, G. A. 2023, ApJ, 943, 112

    2023

  18. [26]

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

    2024

  19. [27]

    2010, , 407, 507

    Collier Cameron , A., Guenther , E., Smalley , B., et al. 2010, , 407, 507

    2010

  20. [28]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: University of Massachusetts and Infrared Processing and Analysis Center...

    2003

  21. [29]

    2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Dekker , H., D'Odorico , S., Kaufer , A., Delabre , B., & Kotzlowski , H. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood , 534--545

    2000

  22. [30]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 4025

    Delrez, L., Santerne, A., Almenara, J.-M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 4025

    2016

  23. [31]

    J., Bristow, P., Smoker, J

    Dorn, R. J., Bristow, P., Smoker, J. V., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A24, publisher: EDP Sciences

    2023

  24. [32]

    2020, Nature, 580, 597

    Ehrenreich, D., Lovis, C., Allart, R., et al. 2020, Nature, 580, 597

    2020

  25. [33]

    2019, , 490, 2262

    Espinoza , N., Kossakowski , D., & Brahm , R. 2019, , 490, 2262

    2019

  26. [34]

    M., Sing, D

    Evans, T. M., Sing, D. K., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, L4

    2016

  27. [35]

    M., Sing , D

    Evans-Soma , T. M., Sing , D. K., Barstow , J. K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy [ [arXiv] 2506.01771 ]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J., Oliva, E., et al

    Follert, R., Dorn, R. J., Oliva, E., et al. 2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , Vol. 9147 (International Society for Optics and Photonics), 914719

    2014

  29. [37]

    2017, , 154, 220

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Agol , E., Ambikasaran , S., & Angus , R. 2017, , 154, 220

    2017

  30. [38]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    2013

  31. [39]

    G., et al

    Fossati, L., Shulyak, D., Sreejith, A. G., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A131

    2020

  32. [40]

    J., Petigura , E

    Fulton , B. J., Petigura , E. A., Blunt , S., & Sinukoff , E. 2018, , 130, 044504

    2018

  33. [41]

    2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 242

    Gandhi, S., Kesseli, A., Zhang, Y., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 242

    2023

  34. [42]

    2023, , 165, 242

    Gandhi , S., Kesseli , A., Zhang , Y., et al. 2023, , 165, 242

    2023

  35. [43]

    M., Barstow , J

    Gapp , C., Evans-Soma , T. M., Barstow , J. K., et al. 2025, , 169, 341

    2025

  36. [44]

    J., Timmermans , M., Pozuelos , F

    Garcia , L. J., Timmermans , M., Pozuelos , F. J., et al. 2022, , 509, 4817

    2022

  37. [45]

    S., Stassun, K

    Gaudi, B. S., Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 546, 514

    2017

  38. [46]

    P., Merritt, S., Nugroho, S

    Gibson, N. P., Merritt, S., Nugroho, S. K., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2215

    2020

  39. [47]

    P., Nugroho, S

    Gibson, N. P., Nugroho, S. K., Lothringer, J., Maguire, C., & Sing, D. K. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4618

    2022

  40. [48]

    Gray, D. F. 2021, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres (4th ed.), cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    2021

  41. [49]

    Grimm, S. L. & Heng, K. 2015, ApJ, 808, 182

    2015

  42. [50]

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

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

    2021

  43. [51]

    R., Cameron, A

    Hellier, C., Anderson, D. R., Cameron, A. C., et al. 2009, Nature, 460, 1098

    2009

  44. [52]

    2021, A&A, 649, A44

    Helling, C., Lewis, D., Samra, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A44

    2021

  45. [53]

    J., Bouchy , F., Lavie , B., et al

    Hobson , M. J., Bouchy , F., Lavie , B., et al. 2024, , 688, A216

    2024

  46. [54]

    J., Cabot, S

    Hoeijmakers, H. J., Cabot, S. H. C., Zhao, L., et al. 2020 a , A&A, 641, A120

    2020

  47. [55]

    J., Ehrenreich, D., Heng, K., et al

    Hoeijmakers, H. J., Ehrenreich, D., Heng, K., et al. 2018, Nature, 560, 453

    2018

  48. [56]

    J., Ehrenreich, D., Kitzmann, D., et al

    Hoeijmakers, H. J., Ehrenreich, D., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A165

    2019

  49. [57]

    J., Kitzmann, D., Morris, B

    Hoeijmakers, H. J., Kitzmann, D., Morris, B. M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A139

    2024

  50. [58]

    J., Seidel, J

    Hoeijmakers, H. J., Seidel, J. V., Pino, L., et al. 2020 b , A&A, 641, A123

    2020

  51. [59]

    V., et al

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

    2000

  52. [60]

    M., Twicken , J

    Jenkins , J. M., Twicken , J. D., McCauliff , S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman , 99133E

    2016

  53. [61]

    John, T. L. 1988, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 193, 189

    1988

  54. [62]

    G., Lendl , M., Cubillos , P

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

    2018

  55. [63]

    Kipping , D. M. 2013, , 435, 2152

    2013

  56. [64]

    B., et al

    Kitzmann, D., Heng, K., Rimmer, P. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 183

    2018

  57. [65]

    W., & Patzer, A

    Kitzmann, D., Stock, J. W., & Patzer, A. B. C. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7263

    2024

  58. [66]

    2015, , 127, 1161

    Kreidberg , L. 2015, , 127, 1161

    2015

  59. [67]

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

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

    2012

  60. [68]

    E., Hagelberg , J., et al

    Lendl , M., Cubillos , P. E., Hagelberg , J., et al. 2017, , 606, A18

    2017

  61. [69]

    E., Rothman, L

    Li, G., Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., et al. 2015, ApJ Supplement Series, 216, 15

    2015

  62. [70]

    D., Barman, T., & Koskinen, T

    Lothringer, J. D., Barman, T., & Koskinen, T. 2018, ApJ, 866, 27

    2018

  63. [71]

    D., Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D

    Lothringer, J. D., Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 12

    2021

  64. [72]

    B., Rodriguez, J

    Lund, M. B., Rodriguez, J. E., Zhou, G., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 194

    2017

  65. [73]

    2012, ApJ, 758, 36

    Madhusudhan, N. 2012, ApJ, 758, 36

    2012

  66. [74]

    P., Nugroho, S

    Maguire, C., Gibson, N. P., Nugroho, S. K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1030

    2023

  67. [75]

    K., Masseron, T., Hoeijmakers, H

    McKemmish, L. K., Masseron, T., Hoeijmakers, H. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2836

    2019

  68. [76]

    R., Gibson , N

    Merritt , S. R., Gibson , N. P., Nugroho , S. K., et al. 2021, , 506, 3853

    2021

  69. [77]

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

    Park, C., Jaffe, D. T., Yuk, I.-S., et al. 2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V , Vol. 9147 (SPIE), 510--521

    2014

  70. [78]

    R., Bean, J

    Parmentier, V., Line, M. R., Bean, J. L., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A110

    2018

  71. [79]

    Patel, J. A. & Espinoza, N. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 228

    2022

  72. [80]

    2023, Nature, 619, 491

    Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Ali-Dib, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 491

    2023

  73. [81]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 10

    Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Chachan, Y., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 10

    2024

  74. [82]

    2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 73

    Pelletier, S., Benneke, B., Darveau-Bernier, A., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 73

    2021

  75. [83]

    2021, A&A, 645, A96

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

    2021

  76. [84]

    2000, in Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors , Vol

    Pepe, F., Mayor, M., Delabre, B., et al. 2000, in Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors , Vol. 4008 (SPIE), 582--592

    2000

  77. [85]

    L., Kyuberis, A

    Polyansky, O. L., Kyuberis, A. A., Zobov, N. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2597

    2018

  78. [86]

    J., Kitzmann, D., et al

    Prinoth, B., Hoeijmakers, H. J., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 449

    2022

  79. [87]

    J., Pelletier, S., et al

    Prinoth, B., Hoeijmakers, H. J., Pelletier, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A182

    2023

  80. [88]

    V., Hoeijmakers , H

    Prinoth , B., Seidel , J. V., Hoeijmakers , H. J., et al. 2025, , 694, A284

    2025

  81. [89]

    P., Nugroho , S

    Ramkumar , S., Gibson , N. P., Nugroho , S. K., Fortune , M., & Maguire , C. 2025, , 695, A110

    2025

  82. [90]

    S., Gordon, I

    Rothman, L. S., Gordon, I. E., Barber, R. J., et al. 2010, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 111, 2139

    2010

  83. [91]

    L., et al

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

    2015

  84. [92]

    Saha, M. N. 1920, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 40, 472, publisher: Taylor & Francis \_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14786441008636148

    1920 doi

  85. [93]

    C., Cristo, E., Demangeon, O., et al

    Santos, N. C., Cristo, E., Demangeon, O., et al. 2020, arXiv:2011.03746 [astro-ph], arXiv: 2011.03746

    2020 arXiv

  86. [94]

    B., Kempton, E

    Savel, A. B., Kempton, E. M.-R., Rauscher, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 99, publisher: The American Astronomical Society

    2023

  87. [95]

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

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

    2023

  88. [96]

    V., Ehrenreich, D., Allart, R., et al

    Seidel, J. V., Ehrenreich, D., Allart, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A73

    2021

  89. [97]

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

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

    2020

  90. [98]

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

    Seidel, J. V., Ehrenreich, D., Wyttenbach, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A166

    2019

  91. [99]

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

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

    2020

  92. [100]

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

    Seidel , J. V., Prinoth , B., Pino , L., et al. 2025, , 639, 902

    2025

  93. [101]

    A., Demangeon, O

    Silva, T. A., Demangeon, O. D. S., Santos, N. C., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, L10, publisher: EDP Sciences

    2022

  94. [102]

    K., Evans-Soma, T

    Sing, D. K., Evans-Soma, T. M., Rustamkulov, Z., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 231

    2024

  95. [103]

    K., Fortney, J

    Sing, D. K., Fortney, J. J., Nikolov, N., et al. 2016, Nature, 529, 59

    2016

  96. [104]

    K., Lavvas, P., Ballester, G

    Sing, D. K., Lavvas, P., Ballester, G. E., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 91

    2019

  97. [105]

    C., Stumpe , M

    Smith , J. C., Stumpe , M. C., Van Cleve , J. E., et al. 2012, , 124, 1000

    2012

  98. [106]

    Smith, P. C. B., Sanchez, J. A., Line, M. R., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 293

    2024

  99. [107]

    Snellen, I. A. G., Kok, R. J. d., Mooij, E. J. W. d., & Albrecht, S. 2010, Nature, 465, 1049

    2010

  100. [108]

    Speagle , J. S. 2020, , 493, 3132

    2020

  101. [109]

    W., Kitzmann, D., & Patzer, A

    Stock, J. W., Kitzmann, D., & Patzer, A. B. C. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4070

    2022

  102. [110]

    W., Kitzmann, D., Patzer, A

    Stock, J. W., Kitzmann, D., Patzer, A. B. C., & Sedlmayr, E. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 865

    2018

  103. [111]

    C., Smith , J

    Stumpe , M. C., Smith , J. C., Catanzarite , J. H., et al. 2014, , 126, 100

    2014

  104. [112]

    C., Smith , J

    Stumpe , M. C., Smith , J. C., Van Cleve , J. E., et al. 2012, , 124, 985

    2012

  105. [113]

    & Komacek, T

    Tan, X. & Komacek, T. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 26

    2019

  106. [114]

    D., Batalha, N

    Tan, X., Komacek, T. D., Batalha, N. E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1016

    2024

  107. [115]

    2010, , 18, 67

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

    2010

  108. [116]

    2025, , 700, A9

    Vaulato , V., Pelletier , S., Ehrenreich , D., et al. 2025, , 700, A9

    2025

  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

    2025 arXiv

  110. [118]

    P., Parmentier, V., Lee, E

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

    2021

  111. [119]

    P., Parmentier, V., Line, M

    Wardenier, J. P., Parmentier, V., Line, M. R., & Lee, E. K. H. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4942

    2023

  112. [120]

    P., Parmentier, V., Line, M

    Wardenier, J. P., Parmentier, V., Line, M. R., et al. 2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 084403

    2024

  113. [121]

    G., Hellier, C., Almenara, J.-M., et al

    West, R. G., Hellier, C., Almenara, J.-M., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A126

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.