Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 10 cited by

First JWST thermal phase curves of temperate terrestrial exoplanets reveal no thick atmosphere around TRAPPIST-1 b and c

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST thermal phase curves of TRAPPIST-1 b and c rule out efficient heat redistribution, making thick atmospheres unlikely on either temperate rocky planet.

desk verdict First JWST phase curves of temperate terrestrial planets; main result is solid, but 'no thick atmosphere' is an overstatement—the fine-tuned hazy CO2 case survives. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02128 v1 pith:QMWMKTHC submitted 2025-09-02 astro-ph.EP

Michaël Gillon , Elsa Ducrot , Taylor J. Bell , Ziyu Huang , Andrew Lincowski , Xintong Lyu , Alice Maurel , Alexandre Revol
show 25 more authors
Eric Agol Emeline Bolmont Chuanfei Dong Thomas J. Fauchez Daniel D.B. Koll Jérémy Leconte Victoria S. Meadows Franck Selsis Martin Turbet Benjamin Charnay Laetita Delre Brice-Olivier Demory Aaron Householder Sebastian Zieba David Berardo Achrène Dyrek Billy Edwards Julien de Wit Thomas P. Greene Renyu Hu Nicolas Iro Laura Kreidberg Pierre-Olivier Lagage Jacob Lustig-Yaeger Aishwarya Iyer
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetsTRAPPIST-1thermalphasecurvesJWST/MIRIterrestrialplanetsheatredistributionsecondaryeclipsesultracooldwarfs
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 presents the first JWST thermal phase curves of temperate terrestrial exoplanets: 59 hours of continuous 15 µm MIRI photometry of TRAPPIST-1, capturing full-orbit emission variations of planets b and c. Because an atmosphere transports heat from the perpetually sunlit dayside to the nightside, the day-night brightness contrast and the phase of the emission peak directly diagnose atmosphere presence. The measured curves show a hot dayside for b (490 K), nightside emission consistent with zero, and no phase offset; c shows a cooler dayside (369 K) and nightside emission statistically indistinguishable from b's. Efficient heat redistribution is firmly ruled out for b and appears unlikely for c, and atmospheric models with surface pressures of 1 bar or more with efficient greenhouse effects are strongly disfavored for both. The paper concludes that TRAPPIST-1 b almost certainly has no substantial atmosphere, while TRAPPIST-1 c may host a thin, greenhouse-poor O2-dominated atmosphere or be airless with a more reflective surface.

What carries the argument

The thermal phase curve is the load-bearing observable: the planet-to-star flux measured continuously across the orbit, decomposed into a dayside term, a nightside term, and a longitudinal phase offset δ. An atmosphere redistributes heat, producing a nonzero nightside term and a peak that shifts away from the substellar point; an airless body emits from the dayside only, peaking at the substellar point with a quasi-Lambertian limb profile. The paper compares the measured parameters to (1) a two-column day-night climate-photochemical model generating synthetic phase curves for many atmospheric compositions and pressures, (2) 3D global climate model simulations of the surviving scenarios, incl

What would settle it

A higher-precision or 12.8 µm phase curve of TRAPPIST-1 b that detects nightside emission above roughly 100 ppm, or a phase offset beyond about 15 degrees, would contradict the airless conclusion; conversely, detecting the O3 or H2O features predicted at 50–80 ppm in b's transmission spectrum would support the surviving thin-atmosphere scenarios. For c, the planned 12.8 µm eclipse measurement can decide between a bare reflective surface and a thin O2 atmosphere.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that day-night heat redistribution — the observational signature of an atmosphere — is essentially zero for TRAPPIST-1 b and very low for TRAPPIST-1 c. In the nominal model, b's nightside flux is 39+55/−27 ppm against a dayside of 840±56 ppm, with phase offset −6.5±6.4 degrees; full heat redistribution has probability below 0.0006%. For c, the nightside is 62+60/−43 ppm against a 392+75/−63 ppm dayside. A model assuming both planets are bare rocks fits better (Bayes factor >1152). Previously viable scenarios for b — N2 ≥1 bar, thick O2, CO2-rich hazy atmospheres — are discarded because they would deliver measurable nightside flux. For c, steam atmospheres up to 10 ba

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the atmospheric models predicting how much heat even a thin or hazy atmosphere would move to the nightside; if such an atmosphere transports less heat than modeled, or the models miss the sharp dayside hot spot, a thin atmosphere could remain hidden in the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TRAPPIST-1 b, very likely bare rock, can serve as a clean stellar-contamination reference for transmission spectroscopy of the outer TRAPPIST-1 planets, provided the small residual features predicted by surviving thin-atmosphere models are checked.
  • TRAPPIST-1 c's ambiguity between an airless reflective surface and a thin O2-dominated atmosphere is directly testable: planned 12.8 µm eclipse observations should separate the two.
  • The divergent states of b and c, despite similar sizes and compositions, constrain how quickly M-dwarf planets lose secondary atmospheres and suggest atmospheric loss is not uniform across the system.
  • Phase curves, not just eclipse depths, are validated as the decisive measurement for distinguishing bare rocks from hazy or thin atmospheres on temperate rocky exoplanets.
  • The tentative 0.2 R⊕ candidate planet i, seen at ~4σ in one analysis but below 3σ in others, is not robustly detected and requires confirmation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If TRAPPIST-1 b is truly airless, its modestly dark, fresh ultramafic-like surface offers a calibration point for space-weathering rates on M-dwarf planets, which the paper suggests may be faster than in the Solar System.
  • The phase-curve diagnostic used here should transfer to other temperate M-dwarf rocky planets: a single full-orbit 15 µm observation can break the eclipse-depth degeneracy between airless, hazy-thick, and thin-transparent atmospheres.
  • Because the two-column model may under-resolve the sharp substellar temperature peak for thin atmospheres, the 'no substantial atmosphere' claim for b is strongest for pressures ≳0.1 bar; extremely tenuous (~0.01 bar) atmospheres are excluded mainly by stability arguments (nightside CO2 collapse) rather than by the phase curve alone.
  • The suggestion that c may be airless-but-more-reflective implies that 'airless' is not a single observable state; surface albedo variation could complicate population-level interpretations of rocky exoplanet emission.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST/MIRI F1500W thermal phase curves of TRAPPIST-1 b and c (Program GO 3077), combined with earlier eclipse observations, from four independent reductions and global MCMC analyses. The nominal analysis finds for b a dayside flux of 840±56 ppm, nightside flux of 39+55/−27 ppm, and phase offset −6.5±6.4 deg; for c, dayside flux 392+75/−63 ppm, nightside flux 62+60/−43 ppm, and phase offset 10+25/−22 deg. These values rule out efficient heat redistribution for both planets and are consistent with an airless or very tenuous-atmosphere interpretation. Forward atmospheric modeling with a 1.5D climate-photochemical model and 3D GCMs is used to show that most thick, greenhouse-efficient atmospheres are disfavored, while thin O2/N2 atmospheres and, for b, a fresh ultramafic airless surface remain viable. The paper concludes that TRAPPIST-1 b is unlikely to possess a substantial atmosphere, while TRAPPIST-1 c may have a tenuous O2-dominated atmosphere or an airless reflective surface.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a landmark dataset: the first thermal phase curves of temperate terrestrial exoplanets, providing much stronger constraints on heat redistribution than eclipse depths alone. The four independent reductions, Gaussian-process treatment of correlated noise, and forward self-consistent atmospheric models are notable strengths, as is the explicit comparison of multiple modeling frameworks. The measurements firmly exclude full heat redistribution and thereby strongly disfavor the thick, well-mixed atmospheres previously discussed for these planets. However, the paper's strongest claim—that TRAPPIST-1 b has 'no thick atmosphere'—is not strictly a data-driven exclusion: the 1-bar CO2 'Haze high' 3D GCM case is acknowledged to match the phase-curve and eclipse observables and is set aside largely on a fine-tuning judgment. The significance is high, but the headline conclusion needs to be carefully qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'Comparing the two sets...'; Methods '3-D Global Climate Modeling'; Fig. 3b] The central claim that TRAPPIST-1 b has no substantial atmosphere is not fully supported by the statistical comparison presented. The paper explicitly states that the CO2 1 bar + 'Haze high' GCM case remains consistent with the dayside flux, nightside flux, and phase offset (Fig. 3b), and is rejected only because it 'appear[s] to be very fine-tuned' and requires 'unlikely densities' of haze. No prior distribution, sensitivity scan over fhaze or single-scattering albedo, or Bayes factor is provided to quantify this fine-tuning; only two haze grid points are shown. A reader cannot independently assess whether the parameters are improbable enough to overturn the model-data agreement. Please either provide a quantitative model-comparison (e.g., a prior-based marginal likelihood over the haze parameters) or soften the abstract/title to 'no thick atmosphere with efficient heat redistribution'
  2. [Methods, Eqs. (1)-(4) and Fig. 3] The atmospheric-model comparison compresses the observed phase curve into three scalar parameters—dayside flux, nightside flux, and phase offset—derived from a first-order sinusoidal model, and the paper itself cautions that the full phase-curve shape is 'not a robust basis for comparison.' This discards potentially discriminating information: a hazy thick atmosphere and an airless surface could differ in higher-order phase-curve morphology (e.g., the sharpness of the substellar peak, ingress/egress shape, or second harmonic) even when their first-order Fourier amplitudes and offsets agree. Given that the surviving 'Haze high' scenario is distinguished from the airless case mainly by such shape details, the decision not to use the full phase curve weakens the empirical basis for the 'no thick atmosphere' conclusion. Please state explicitly what information is lost, or include a fit to th
  3. [Methods, '3-D Global Climate Modeling of TRAPPIST-1b and c'] The 'Haze high' GCM case, which is the only thick atmosphere that survives the phase-curve comparison, is tuned to the eclipse data by construction: the single-scattering albedo is set to 0.5 and the incoming stellar flux is 'artificially decreas[ed]' specifically to make the dayside emission match the MIRI occultations. Consequently, the subsequent agreement with the phase curve is not an independent prediction, and the model's free parameters (fhaze and single-scattering albedo) are adjusted in the region of parameter space that maximizes agreement. The paper should clarify this circularity and, ideally, show how the phase-curve predictions vary as the tuning parameters are moved within a physically motivated range, rather than presenting the single surviving case as evidence against atmospheres.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1, planet b impact parameter] The entry '0.106+0.47/−0.50 R∗' appears to have a typo; presumably this should be 0.106+0.047/−0.050 R∗. Please correct.
  2. [Methods, Eqs. (1)-(3)] The text defines γ(i,t) as the unocculted fraction, but the equations use Ω(i,t) for the occultation factor. Please make the notation consistent.
  3. [Methods, 'Data reduction and analysis (ED)'] Program numbers are inconsistent: the text refers to 'GO 2305' while the rest of the paper and Table S1 use GO 2304. Please verify.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'The data shown correspond to the nominal reduction (Analysis #1) by MG,' but the text says the analyses are consistent. Please specify which of the four reductions is plotted and why (binned at 60 minutes).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase-curve parameters are measured, and the atmospheric/surface models are forward models compared to those measurements without being fit to them.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks. The dayside, nightside, and offset parameters (F_D, F_N, delta) are fitted directly to the JWST/MIRI light curves via MCMC, and the atmospheric/surface scenarios are then forward-modeled and compared to those measured values. The 1.5D day-night models and 3D GCMs do not take the phase-curve parameters as inputs; the paper explicitly reports confidence intervals for "our forward models (with no fit parameters)" (Methods, Day-Night Atmospheric Phase Curve Modeling). The data/model comparison uses the posteriors of the measured parameters, not a fit of the models to them, so the main inference (inefficient heat redistribution, disfavored thick greenhouse atmospheres) is not circular. Four independent reductions/analyses agree, and the airless quasi-Lambertian model is an independent alternative hypothesis, not a renamed version of the atmospheric model. The GCM haze cases are pre-selected to match prior occultation measurements, some of which are also included in the global light-curve fit, but the discriminating nightside flux and phase offset are not used in that selection; the paper is also transparent that the surviving hazy CO2 case requires fine-tuned parameters and that the 1.5D thin-atmosphere models may miss the substellar peak. These are modeling limitations and prior judgments, not definitional or fitted-input circularity. Self-citations to prior work by the same groups (e.g., the VPL two-column model and Generic PCM GCM) are methodological references with independent physical content, not load-bearing appeals to an unverified uniqueness or ansatz result.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central measurement (phase curve amplitudes and offsets) is data, not free parameters. The atmospheric model comparisons introduce tuned parameters (haze factors, albedo) and rely on model assumptions about heat transport, tidal locking, and stellar flux calibration. The candidate planet i is speculative and flagged as such.

free parameters (4)
  • fhaze (haze mass mixing factor) in 3D GCM = 7e-4 (Haze high), 3e-5 (Haze low)
    Tuned in the CO2 hazy atmosphere GCM runs to match the MIRI occultation depths; paper states these need to be fine-tuned.
  • GCM haze single-scattering albedo = 0.5 (Haze high), 0.2 (Haze low)
    Adjusted artificially to prevent dayside emission exceeding occultation constraints, because GCM predicts more heat redistribution than 1D models.
  • GCM surface albedo = 0.1
    Set to 0.1 in all GCM simulations; the paper states a low albedo is necessary to match the measured occultations.
  • 1.5D basalt surface albedo for b = half of basalt (Mercury-like)
    Chosen to approximate a dark surface for thin atmosphere models of TRAPPIST-1 b.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Planets are tidally locked in 1:1 synchronous rotation
    Phase curve models (eqs. 1-4) assume synchronous rotation; tidal constraints later support near-synchronization but with small spin oscillations.
  • domain assumption Atmospheric heat transport is correctly captured by the 1.5D two-column model and the Generic PCM 3D GCM
    Used to rule out atmospheres based on predicted nightside emission and phase offsets; paper notes the 1.5D model may fail to reproduce the sharp substellar peak for thin atmospheres.
  • domain assumption The sinusoidal day/night phase curve model and the quasi-Lambertian model span the plausible photometric signatures of rocky planets
    Analyses #1 and #2 assume these specific functional forms; a real surface/atmosphere could in principle produce a different phase shape.
  • domain assumption Absolute stellar flux F* = 2.496 +/- 0.080 mJy at 14.87 um is correct
    Brightness temperatures depend linearly on F*; measured independently twice, but the MIRI absolute photometric precision is estimated at 3%.
  • domain assumption Limb-darkening coefficients from ExoCTK for T=3500K, log g=5.0 apply to TRAPPIST-1 after inflating errors
    Priors for u1 and u2 derived from a hotter model star, with standard deviations increased tenfold to cover the mismatch.
invented entities (1)
  • Candidate planet i (TRAPPIST-1 i)
    purpose: Explains a ~2 hour transit-like dip in the GO 3077 light curve; if real, a ~0.2 R_Earth planet with P~28 d
    Detected at ~4 sigma in one of four analyses, below 3 sigma in the others; the paper states it is too low for a robust detection, and one independent analysis (TJB) with BIC prefers excluding it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First JWST thermal phase curves of temperate terrestrial exoplanets reveal no thick atmosphere around TRAPPIST-1 b and c." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QMWMKTHC

@misc{pith2026250902128,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First JWST thermal phase curves of temperate terrestrial exoplanets reveal no thick atmosphere around TRAPPIST-1 b and c},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QMWMKTHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02128}
}
abstract

We report JWST/MIRI 15 $\mu$m phase curves of TRAPPIST-1 b and c, revealing thermal emission consistent with their irradiation levels, assuming no efficient heat redistribution. We find that TRAPPIST-1 b shows a high dayside brightness temperature (490 $\pm$ 17 K), no significantly detectable nightside emission ($F_{\rm b, Night, max}$ = $39_{-27}^{+55}$ ppm), and no phase offset -- features consistent with a low-albedo, airless ultramafic rocky surface. TRAPPIST-1 c exhibits a lower dayside brightness temperature (369 $\pm$ 23 K), and a nightside flux statistically indistinguishable from that of TRAPPIST-1 b ($F_{\rm c, Night, max}$ = $62_{-43}^{+60}$ ppm). Atmosphere models with surface pressures $\geq$1 bar and efficient greenhouse effects are strongly disfavoured for both planets. TRAPPIST-1 b is unlikely to possess any substantial atmosphere, while TRAPPIST-1 c may retain a tenuous, greenhouse-poor O$_2$-dominated atmosphere or be similarly airless with a more reflective surface. These results suggest divergent evolutionary pathways or atmospheric loss processes, despite similar compositions. These measurements tightly constrain atmosphere retention in the inner TRAPPIST-1 system.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. JWST COMPASS Program: The 3--5$\mu$m transmission spectrum of LTT 1445 A b

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    JWST NIRSpec observations of LTT 1445 A b yield a featureless 3-5μm transmission spectrum, limiting atmospheric metallicity to ≳350× solar under grey-cloud models.

  2. Sulfur photochemistry observationally traces mantle redox states of rocky planets

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

    Photochemical SO2 in rocky exoplanet atmospheres produces JWST-detectable absorption features at 4 and 7–9 μm that trace the mantle's oxidation state, linking observed spectra to planetary interiors.

  3. GJ 3929 b as the First Complete Rocky Worlds DDT Data Set

    astro-ph.EP 2026-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    GJ 3929 b's full four-eclipse JWST/MIRI data set yields an eclipse depth of 118±22 ppm, consistent with a bare rocky surface and ruling out thick CO2 atmospheres at >3σ.

  4. A single power law for the TRAPPIST-1 flare distribution across four orders of magnitude in energy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    TRAPPIST-1 flares follow a single power law N(≥E_TESS) ∝ E_TESS^{-0.753} from 10^{29} to 10^{33} erg after sensitivity corrections and bandpass conversion.

  5. Uniform Reinterpretation of Rocky Exoplanet Secondary Eclipse Observations and the Impact of Stellar and Orbital Uncertainties

    astro-ph.EP 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Accounting for stellar and orbital uncertainties shows that predicted eclipse depths for bare-rock models of rocky exoplanets carry substantial uncertainty comparable to measurements, establishing a fundamental precis...

  6. A Search for Wide-orbit Planets Around M-dwarfs using Deep MIRI 15-micron Images

    astro-ph.EP 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reference differential imaging of archival MIRI F1500W TSO data reaches 5σ contrasts of ~10^{-3} at 1" and ~2×10^{-4} beyond 3", enabling sensitivity to ~4–10 MJup planets at tens of AU around old M-dwarfs.

  7. A broad exploration of climate and observability of close-in rocky exoplanets: applications to Ross 128 b

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    3D climate simulations of Ross 128 b yield geometric albedos of 0.07 to 0.2 in the visible and near zero in the near-infrared, well below the common 0.3 assumption.

  8. A single power law for the TRAPPIST-1 flare distribution across four orders of magnitude in energy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    TRAPPIST-1 flares obey a single power law N(≥E) ∝ E^{-0.753} from 10^29 to 10^33 erg in TESS energy after sensitivity corrections.

  9. GJ 3929 b as the First Complete Rocky Worlds DDT Data Set

    astro-ph.EP 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Complete four-observation JWST dataset for GJ 3929 b yields 118±22 ppm eclipse depth, consistent with bare rock while allowing thin atmospheres and ruling out only thick CO2 cases at >3σ.

  10. A Search for Wide-orbit Planets Around M-dwarfs using Deep MIRI 15-micron Images

    astro-ph.EP 2026-04 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    Archival MIRI imaging reaches contrasts of 10^-3 to 10^-4 at 1-3 arcseconds, enabling detection of ~170 K Jupiter-sized planets at separations >35 AU around M-dwarfs at 12.5 pc, with no new planets found but useful se...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    & Charbonneau, D

    Ment, K. & Charbonneau, D. The Occurrence Rate of Terrestrial Planets Orbiting Nearby Mid-to-late M Dwarfs from TESS Sectors 1-42. Astron. J. 165, 265 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Gillon, M. et al. The trappist-1 jwst community initiative. Bulletin of the AAS 52 (2020). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/25c2cfeb.afbf0205. 58

    work page doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.afbf0205 2020

  3. [3]

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Meadows, V. S. & Lincowski, A. P. The Detectability and Char- acterization of the TRAPPIST-1 Exoplanet Atmospheres with JWST. Astron. J. 158, 27 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Greene, T. P. et al. Thermal emission from the Earth-sized exoplanet TRAPPIST- 1 b using JWST. Nature 618, 39–42 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Ih, J., Kempton, E. M. R., Whittaker, E. A. & Lessard, M. Constraining the Thickness of TRAPPIST-1 b’s Atmosphere from Its JWST Secondary Eclipse Observation at 15 µm. Astrophys. J. Lett. 952, L4 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Ducrot, E. et al. Combined analysis of the 12.8 and 15 µm JWST/MIRI eclipse observations of TRAPPIST-1 b. Nature Astronomy (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Zieba, S. et al. No thick carbon dioxide atmosphere on the rocky exoplanet TRAPPIST-1 c. Nature 620, 746–749 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Lincowski, A. P. et al. Potential Atmospheric Compositions of TRAPPIST-1 c Constrained by JWST/MIRI Observations at 15 µm. Astrophys. J. Lett. 955, L7 (2023)

    2023

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    Turbet, M. et al. Water condensation zones around main sequence stars. Astron. Astrophys. 679, A126 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Hammond, M. et al. Reliable Detections of Atmospheres on Rocky Exoplanets with Photometric JWST Phase Curves. Astrophys. J. Lett. 978, L40 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Bell, T. et al. Eureka!: An End-to-End Pipeline for JWST Time-Series Observations. The Journal of Open Source Software 7, 4503 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Stetson, P. B. DAOPHOT: A Computer Program for Crowded-Field Stellar Photometry. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 99, 191 (1987)

    1987

  5. [13]

    Gillon, M. et al. The Spitzer search for the transits of HARPS low-mass planets. I. No transit for the super-Earth HD 40307b. Astron. Astrophys. 518, A25 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Gillon, M. et al. The TRAPPIST survey of southern transiting planets. I. Thirty eclipses of the ultra-short period planet W ASP-43 b. Astron. Astrophys. 542, A4 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    & Agol, E

    Mandel, K. & Agol, E. Analytic Light Curves for Planetary Transit Searches. Astrophys. J. Lett. 580, L171–L175 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Placek, B., Knuth, K. H. & Angerhausen, D. Exonest: Bayesian model selec- tion applied to the detection and characterization of exoplanets via photometric variations. Astrophys. J. 795, 112 (2014). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/795/2/112. 59

    2014

  9. [17]

    Rounding up the wanderers: optimizing coronagraphic searches for extrasolar planets

    Agol, E. Rounding up the wanderers: optimizing coronagraphic searches for extrasolar planets. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 374, 1271–1289 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    & Rubin, D

    Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences. Statistical Science 7, 457–472 (1992)

    1992

  11. [19]

    Agol, E. et al. Refining the Transit-timing and Photometric Analysis of TRAPPIST-1: Masses, Radii, Densities, Dynamics, and Ephemerides. Planet. Sci. J. 2, 1 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Mikal-Evans, T. et al. A JWST NIRSpec Phase Curve for W ASP-121b: Dayside Emission Strongest Eastward of the Substellar Point and Nightside Conditions Conducive to Cloud Formation. Astrophys. J. Lett. 943, L17 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Kempton, E. M. R. et al. A reflective, metal-rich atmosphere for GJ 1214b from its JWST phase curve. Nature 620, 67–71 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Zhang, M. et al. GJ 367b Is a Dark, Hot, Airless Sub-Earth. Astrophys. J. Lett. 961, L44 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Bell, T. J. et al. Nightside clouds and disequilibrium chemistry on the hot Jupiter W ASP-43b.arXiv e-prints arXiv:2401.13027 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Lincowski, A. P. et al. Evolved Climates and Observational Discriminants for the TRAPPIST-1 Planetary System. Astrophys. J. 867, 76 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Lim, O. et al. Atmospheric Reconnaissance of TRAPPIST-1 b with JWST/NIRISS: Evidence for Strong Stellar Contamination in the Transmission Spectra. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2309.07047 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Turbet, M. et al. Modeling climate diversity, tidal dynamics and the fate of volatiles on TRAPPIST-1 planets. Astron. Astrophys. 612, A86 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Turbet, M. et al. A Review of Possible Planetary Atmospheres in the TRAPPIST- 1 System. Space Sci. Rev. 216, 100 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Dong, C. et al. Atmospheric escape from the TRAPPIST-1 planets and implications for habitability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 260–265 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    A roadmap to the efficient and robust characterization of temperate terrestrial planet atmospheres with JWST

    TRAPPIST-1 JWST Community Initiative et al. A roadmap to the efficient and robust characterization of temperate terrestrial planet atmospheres with JWST. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2310.15895 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Rathcke, A. D. et al. Stellar contamination correction using back-to-back transits of trappist-1 b and c (2024). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16541. 2412.16541

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lyu, X. et al. Super-earth lhs3844b is tidally locked. Astrophys. J. 964, 152 (2024). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad2077. 60

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Mansfield, M. et al. Identifying Atmospheres on Rocky Exoplanets through Inferred High Albedo. Astrophys. J. 886, 141 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Coy, B. P. et al. Population-level Hypothesis Testing with Rocky Planet Emission Data: A Tentative Trend in the Brightness Temperatures of M-Earths (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Pieters, C. M. & Noble, S. K. Space weathering on airless bodies. J. Geophys. Res.: Planets 121, 1865–1884 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Ducrot, E. et al. TRAPPIST-1: Global results of the Spitzer Exploration Science Program Red Worlds. Astron. Astrophys. 640, A112 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Gillon, M. et al. Temperate Earth-sized planets transiting a nearby ultracool dwarf star. Nature 533, 221–224 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    J., Rackham, B

    Fauchez, T. J., Rackham, B. V., Ducrot, E., Stevenson, K. B. & de Wit, J. Stellar Models Also Limit Exoplanet Atmosphere Studies in Emission. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2502.19585 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90 (430), 773–795 (1995). URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459. 1995.10476572. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10...

    1995

  31. [39]

    Bushouse, H. et al. JWST Calibration Pipeline (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Deming, D. et al. Spitzer Secondary Eclipses of the Dense, Modestly- irradiated, Giant Exoplanet HAT-P-20b Using Pixel-level Decorrelation. Astro- phys. J. 805 (2), 132 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/132, arXiv:1411.7404 [astro-ph.EP]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Gillon, M. et al. Search for a habitable terrestrial planet transiting the nearby red dwarf GJ 1214. Astron. Astrophys. 563, A21 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201322362, arXiv:1307.6722 [astro-ph.EP]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hastings, W. K. Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57 (1), 97–109 (1970). URL http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2334940

    1970

  35. [43]

    Estimating the Dimension of a Model

    Schwarz, G. Estimating the Dimension of a Model. Annals of Statistics 6 (2), 461–464 (1978)

    1978

  36. [44]

    Howard, W. S. et al. Characterizing the Near-infrared Spectra of Flares from TRAPPIST-1 during JWST Transit Spectroscopy Observations. Astrophys. J. 959 (1), 64 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acfe75, arXiv:2310.03792 [astro-ph.EP]. 61

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collabora- tion, 2020)

    Gaia Collaboration. VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collabora- tion, 2020). VizieR Online Data Catalog I/350 (2020). https://doi.org/10.26093/ cds/vizier.1350

    2020

  38. [46]

    Bourque, M. et al. ExoCTK: Exoplanet Characterization Tool Kit. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2207.012 (2022). 2207.012

    2022

  39. [47]

    Kipping, D. M. Efficient, uninformative sampling of limb darkening coefficients for two-parameter laws. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 435 (3), 2152–2160 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt1435, arXiv:1308.0009 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    & Agol, E

    Luger, R., Lustig-Yaeger, J. & Agol, E. Planet-Planet Occultations in TRAPPIST-1 and Other Exoplanet Systems. Astrophys. J. 851 (2), 94 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa9c43, arXiv:1711.05739 [astro-ph.EP]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Dyrek, A. et al. Transiting exoplanets with the Mid-InfraRed Instrument on board JWST: From simulations to observations. Astron. Astrophys. 683, A212 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202347127, arXiv:2403.00676 [astro-ph.EP]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Charbonneau, D. et al. The Broadband Infrared Emission Spectrum of the Exo- planet HD 189733b. Astrophys. J. 686 (2), 1341–1348 (2008). https://doi.org/ 10.1086/591635, arXiv:0802.0845 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  43. [51]

    CRDS: Calibration Reference Data System for HST and JWST (2022)

    CRDS developers. CRDS: Calibration Reference Data System for HST and JWST (2022). URL https://github.com/spacetelescope/crds

    2022

  44. [52]

    batman: BAsic Transit Model cAlculatioN in Python

    Kreidberg, L. batman: BAsic Transit Model cAlculatioN in Python. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 127 (957), 1161 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1086/683602, arXiv:1507.08285 [astro-ph.EP]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Luger, R. et al. starry: Analytic Occultation Light Curves. Astron. J. 157 (2), 64 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5, arXiv:1810.06559 [astro- ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Luger, R. et al. rodluger/starry: v1.2.0 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V. & Fonnesbeck, C. Probabilistic programming in python using pymc3. PeerJ Computer Science 2, e55 (2016). URL https: //doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.55. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.55

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    Cowan, N. B. & Agol, E. Inverting Phase Functions to Map Exoplanets. Astrophys. J. Lett. 678 (2), L129 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1086/588553, arXiv:0803.3622 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  49. [57]

    & Angus, R

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S. & Angus, R. Fast and Scal- able Gaussian Process Modeling with Applications to Astronomical Time Series. Astron. J. 154, 220 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 . 62

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    Scalable Backpropagation for Gaussian Processes using Celerite

    Foreman-Mackey, D. Scalable Backpropagation for Gaussian Processes using Celerite. Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society 2 (1), 31 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    Rasmussen, C. E. & Williams, C. K. I. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (2006)

    2006

  52. [60]

    & Weare, J

    Goodman, J. & Weare, J. Ensemble samplers with affine invariance. Com- munications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science 5 (1), 65–80 (2010). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65. https://doi.org/10. 2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    W., Lang, D

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D. & Goodman, J. emcee: The MCMC Hammer. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125 (925), 306 (2013). https://doi.org/10. 1086/670067, arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Speagle, J. S. DYNESTY: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 493, 3132–3158 (2020). URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S. https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa278, aDS Bibcode: 2020MNRA...

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    Bell, T. J. et al. Mass loss from the exoplanet W ASP-12b inferred from Spitzer phase curves. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489 (2), 1995–2013 (2019). https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2018, arXiv:1906.04742 [astro-ph.EP]

    1995 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Guillard, e. a., P. Miri point spread functions: Radial and encir- cled energy profiles (2023). URL https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/ jwst-mid-infrared-instrument/miri-performance/miri-point-spread-functions# MIRIPointSpreadFunctions-Radialandencircledenergyprofiles

    2023

  57. [65]

    Robinson, T. D. & Crisp, D. Linearized Flux Evolution (LiFE): A technique for rapidly adapting fluxes from full-physics radiative transfer models. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 211, 78–95 (2018). https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.03.002

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    Meadows, V. S. & Crisp, D. Ground-based near-infrared observations of the Venus nightside: The thermal structure and water abundance near the surface. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 4595–4622 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1029/95JE03567

    1996 doi

  59. [67]

    C., Wiscombe, W

    Stamnes, K., Tsay, S. C., Wiscombe, W. & Jayaweerz, K. Numerically stable algorithm for discrete-ordinate-method radiative transfer in multiple scattering and emitting layered media. Appl. Opt. 42 (15), 2502–2509 (1988). https://doi. org/10.1364/AO.27.002502

    1988 doi

  60. [68]

    C., Wiscombe, W

    Stamnes, K., Tsay, S. C., Wiscombe, W. & Laszlo, I. DISORT, a general-purpose Fortran program for discrete-ordinate-method radiative transfer in scattering and emitting layered media: documentation of methodology. ftp://climate.gsfc.nasa. 63 gov/pub/wiscombe/MultipleScatt/ (2000)

    2000

  61. [69]

    Kokaly, R. et al. Usgs spectral library version 7 data: Us geological survey data release. United States Geological Survey (USGS): Reston, V A, USA 61 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    & Leconte, J

    Falco, A., Zingales, T., Pluriel, W. & Leconte, J. Toward a multidimensional analysis of transmission spectroscopy. I. Computation of transmission spectra using a 1D, 2D, or 3D atmosphere structure. Astron. Astrophys. 658, A41 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/20214194...

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    R., Line, M

    Iyer, A. R., Line, M. R., Muirhead, P. S., Fortney, J. J. & Gharib-Nezhad, E. The SPHINX M-dwarf Spectral Grid. I. Benchmarking New Model Atmospheres to Derive Fundamental M-dwarf Properties. Astrophys. J. 944 (1), 41 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acabc2, arXiv:220...

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    L., Smith, M

    Villanueva, G. L., Smith, M. D., Protopapa, S., Faggi, S. & Mandell, A. M. Planetary Spectrum Generator: An accurate online radiative transfer suite for atmospheres, comets, small bodies and exoplanets. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 217, 86–104 (2018). https://doi.org/1...

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Villanueva, G. L. et al. Fundamentals of the Planetary Spectrum Generator (https://psg.gsfc.nasa.gov/help.php, 2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Villanueva, G. L. et al. Modeling atmospheric lines by the exoplanet commu- nity (malbec) version 1.0: A cuisines radiative transfer intercomparison project. Planet. Sci. J. 5 (3), 64 (2024). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ad2681. https://doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ad2681

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    Bolmont, E. et al. Water loss from terrestrial planets orbiting ultracool dwarfs: implications for the planets of TRAPPIST-1. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 464 (3), 3728–3741 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2578, arXiv:1605.00616 [astro-ph.EP]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Allen, N. et al. Using stellar contamination proxy TRAPPIST-1 b to search for an atmosphere on TRAPPIST-1 e. JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #6456 (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    V., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z., Robinson, T

    Morley, C. V., Kreidberg, L., Rustamkulov, Z., Robinson, T. & Fortney, J. J. Observing the Atmospheres of Known Temperate Earth-sized Planets with JWST. Astrophys. J. 850 (2), 121 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ aa927b, arXiv:1708.04239 [astro-ph.EP]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Final spin states of planets and satellites

    Goldreich, P. Final spin states of planets and satellites. Astron. J. 71, 1 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1086/109844

    1966 doi

  71. [79]

    The Evolution of the Lunar Orbit Revisited

    Mignard, F. The Evolution of the Lunar Orbit Revisited. I. Moon and Planets 20 (3), 301–315 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00907581 . 64

    1979 doi

  72. [80]

    Makarov, V. V. & Efroimsky, M. No Pseudosynchronous Rotation for Terrestrial Planets and Moons. Astrophys. J. 764 (1), 27 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/764/1/27, arXiv:1209.1616 [astro-ph.EP]

    2013 arXiv

  73. [81]

    & Sotin, C

    Tobie, G., Mocquet, A. & Sotin, C. Tidal dissipation within large icy satellites: Applications to Europa and Titan. Icarus 177 (2), 534–549 (2005). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.icarus.2005.04.006

    2005 doi

  74. [82]

    & Mocquet, A

    Tobie, G., Grasset, O., Dumoulin, C. & Mocquet, A. Tidal response of rocky and ice-rich exoplanets. Astron. Astrophys. 630, A70 (2019). https://doi.org/10. 1051/0004-6361/201935297

    2019

  75. [83]

    Andrade, E. N. D. C. On the Viscous Flow in Metals, and Allied Phenomena. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 84 (567), 1–12 (1910)

    1910

  76. [84]

    A proof that tidal heating in a synchronous rotation is always larger than in an asymptotic nonsynchronous rotation state

    Levrard, B. A proof that tidal heating in a synchronous rotation is always larger than in an asymptotic nonsynchronous rotation state. Icarus 193 (2), 641–643 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2007.10.003, arXiv:0710.5651 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  77. [85]

    & Efroimsky, M

    Bou´ e, G. & Efroimsky, M. Tidal evolution of the Keplerian elements. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 131 (7), 30 (2019). https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10569-019-9908-2, arXiv:1904.02253 [astro-ph.EP]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    & Unterborn, C

    Cottaar, S., Heister, T., Rose, I. & Unterborn, C. BurnMan: A lower mantle mineral physics toolkit. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 15 (4), 1164–1179 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GC005122

    2014 doi

  79. [87]

    & Unterborn, C

    Myhill, R., Cottaar, S., Heister, T., Rose, I. & Unterborn, C. BurnMan v1.0.1. Zenodo (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    & Behounkov´ a, M

    Kervazo, M., Tobie, G., Choblet, G., Dumoulin, C. & Behounkov´ a, M. Solid tides in io´s partially molten interior - contribution of bulk dissipation. Astron. Astrophys. 650, A72 (2021). URL https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039433. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039433

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    Revol, A. et al. Drifts of the sub-stellar points of the TRAPPIST-1 planets. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2409.12065 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409. 12065, arXiv:2409.12065 [astro-ph.EP]

    2024 doi arXiv

  82. [90]

    & Bolmont, E

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S. & Bolmont, E. Studying Tidal Effects In Planetary Systems With Posidonius. A N-Body Simulator Written In Rust. (2017). 1712.01281

    2017 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Bolmont, E. et al. Impact of tides on the transit-timing fits to the TRAPPIST- 1 system. Astron. Astrophys. 635, A117 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/202037546, arXiv:2002.02015 [astro-ph.EP]. 65

    2020 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Theory of reflectance and emittance spectroscopy (Cambridge univer- sity press, 2012)

    Hapke, B. Theory of reflectance and emittance spectroscopy (Cambridge univer- sity press, 2012)

    2012

  85. [93]

    & Deming, D

    Seager, S. & Deming, D. On the method to infer an atmosphere on a tidally locked super earth exoplanet and upper limits to gj 876d. Astrophys. J. 703 (2), 1884 (2009)

    2009

  86. [94]

    Hu, R., Ehlmann, B. L. & Seager, S. Theoretical Spectra of Terrestrial Exoplanet Surfaces. Astrophys. J. 752 (1), 7 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/ 752/1/7

    2012 doi

  87. [95]

    Paragas, K. et al. A New Spectral Library for Modeling the Surfaces of Hot, Rocky Exoplanets (2025). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.04433. https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.04433

    2025 doi arXiv

  88. [96]

    First, E. C. et al. Potential for observing geological diversity from mid-infrared spectra of rocky exoplanets. Nature Astronomy 9 (3), 370–379 (2025). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02412-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41550-024-02412-7, publisher: Nature Publis...

    2025

  89. [97]

    Energy spectra of X-ray clusters of galaxies

    Avni, Y. Energy spectra of X-ray clusters of galaxies. Astrophys. J. 210, 642–646 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1086/154870

    1976 doi

  90. [98]

    B., Schultz, P

    Syal, M. B., Schultz, P. H. & Riner, M. A. Darkening of Mercury’s surface by cometary carbon. Nature Geoscience 8 (5), 352–356 (2015). https://doi.org/10. 1038/ngeo2397

    2015

  91. [99]

    & Kriskovics, L

    Vida, K., K˝ ov´ ari, Z., P´ al, A., Ol´ ah, K. & Kriskovics, L. Frequent flaring in the TRAPPIST-1 system—unsuited for life? Astrophys. J. 841 (2), 124 (2017). URL https://doi.org/10.3847%2F1538-4357%2Faa6f05. https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/aa6f05

    2017

  92. [100]

    Tovar Mendoza, G., Davenport, J. R. A., Agol, E., Jackman, J. A. G. & Hawley, S. L. Llamaradas Estelares: Modeling the Morphology of White-light Flares. Astron. J. 164 (1), 17 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ac6fe6, arXiv:2205.05706 [astro-ph.SR]

    2022 arXiv

  93. [101]

    G¨ unther, M. N.et al. Stellar Flares from the First TESS Data Release: Exploring a New Sample of M Dwarfs. Astron. J. 159 (2), 60 (2020). https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a, arXiv:1901.00443 [astro-ph.EP]

    2020 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Howard, W. S. et al. The First Naked-eye Superflare Detected from Proxima Centauri. Astrophys. J. Lett. 860 (2), L30 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 2041-8213/aacaf3, arXiv:1804.02001 [astro-ph.EP]

    2018 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Maas, A. J. et al. Lower-than-expected flare temperatures for TRAPPIST-

  96. [104]

    Astrophys

    Astron. Astrophys. 668, A111 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 66 202243869, arXiv:2210.11103 [astro-ph.SR]

    2022 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Paudel, R. R. et al. K2 ultracool dwarfs survey – v. high superflare rates on rapidly rotating late-m dwarfs. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 486 (1), 1438–1447 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz886. https://doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/stz886

    2019 doi

  98. [106]

    corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in python

    Foreman-Mackey, D. corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in python. The Journal of Open Source Software 1 (2), 24 (2016). URL https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00024. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00024 . 67 Supplementary Figures Supplementary Fig. 1 | Program 3077 raw light curve and e...

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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