Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Simulations of Flare Chemistry in Brown Dwarf Companions to Active M Dwarfs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Single superflares from M dwarf hosts can drive order-of-magnitude chemical swings in brown dwarf companion atmospheres, but the changes fade within a day and are only observable soon after the event at high spectral resolution.

desk verdict First careful flare-chemistry model for hot high-gravity brown dwarfs; the qualitative picture is solid and limits are honestly disclosed, but the quantitative observability forecast rests on an untested synthetic flare SED. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07063 v1 pith:354UTHAT submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Aidan Gibbs , Michael P. Fitzgerald This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords browndwarfsstellarflaresphotochemistryMdwarfactivityatmosphericchemistryradiative-convectivetransferchemicalkineticsemissionspectroscopy
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

Brown dwarfs on short orbits around flaring M dwarfs are rare but newly discoverable laboratories for watching a planet-like atmosphere react to a stellar flare. This paper simulates single superflares on a hot, high-gravity, cloudless brown dwarf with fully coupled chemistry and radiative transfer, the first study of flare photochemistry under brown dwarf conditions. The central result is that flares do reprogram the upper-atmosphere chemistry, swinging mixing ratios of CH4, NH3, TiO, SO2 and other species by orders of magnitude, but the high temperatures and densities of a brown dwarf make those changes short-lived, generally under a day. The paper concludes that the only practical way to see the aftermath is high-resolution emission spectroscopy taken within hours of a flare, with H2O photolysis giving the immediate signal and CO2 enhancement near 4.2 microns lasting longest.

What carries the argument

The modeling chain: VULCAN (1-D chemical kinetics with an HCNO+TiV reaction network) iteratively coupled to HELIOS (1-D radiative-convective transfer with on-the-fly opacities), driven by time-dependent Fiducial Flare spectra (a 9000 K blackbody plus UV emission lines with a boxcar-plus-exponential light curve). A 10-second sequential coupling step lets photochemistry and temperature respond to the flare's rise and decay; the resulting opacity feedback is what localizes the temperature change to the photochemically active layer around 10^-5 to 10^-4 bar.

What would settle it

Triggered high-resolution (R ~ 10^5) near-infrared emission spectroscopy of a known short-period brown dwarf companion, such as TOI-2119b, observed within hours of a detected superflare: look for the predicted percent-level H2O photolysis contrast and a several-hundred-ppm emission decrease at 4.2 microns persisting about a day. Absence of both signatures, or a simultaneous measurement showing the host flare's UV output to be far weaker than the Fiducial Flare assumption, would contradict the model's core SED and chemical-network predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a representative T_eff=2000 K, log g=5 cloudless brown dwarf orbiting an M1.5V star at 0.05 au, a single 10^33 to 10^35 erg superflare transiently reprograms the photochemistry of the upper atmosphere (pressures below roughly 1 mbar): mixing ratios of CH4, NH3, H2O, TiO, SO2 and other species swing by orders of magnitude within minutes. Because high temperatures and densities shorten chemical timescales, most abundances return toward the quiescent state within about a day, and the thermal response is only a few to a few tens of Kelvin, driven chiefly by photochemically altered opacities rather than direct flare heating. Translating the chemistry into emission spectra, the authors find th

Load-bearing premise

The flare input is a synthetic 9000 K blackbody plus UV lines with a boxcar-and-decay light curve; the authors themselves note that flares with significantly different spectral energy distributions (for example, predominantly X-ray) could produce different results, and the magnitude, duration, and even identity of the predicted chemical changes all depend on this assumed UV output.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Even the most energetic single flare (10^35 erg) produces only tens of Kelvin of heating and mostly sub-day chemical perturbations, so repeated flaring is unlikely to build a quasi-steady altered state in hot, high-gravity brown dwarf atmospheres.
  • Self-consistent temperature-chemistry coupling is unnecessary when the goal is predicting observability of flare impacts from radiative heating alone; VULCAN-only runs reproduce coupled runs to better than 1% in mixing ratios during the first two hours.
  • At R ~ 10^5, immediate post-flare emission changes can reach about a percent (dominated by H2O photolysis), but drop below roughly 10 ppm within 36 hours; the longest-lived signature is a CO2-driven emission decrease near 4.2 microns.
  • At R ~ 1000 the spectral changes peak at about 10 ppm, so high-resolution spectroscopy is the only plausible detection route.
  • Catching a flare impact requires observing the brown dwarf within hours of a superflare with high-resolution emission spectroscopy while contending with stellar contamination, making single-flare detection very challenging but still worth attempting to validate the models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors stop at single flares; extending the framework to repeated flaring with realistic flare statistics is a natural next test, and their own relaxation-time estimates suggest that for most species the quiescent state should dominate, with cumulative effects likely confined to slow-recovering species like SO2.
  • If real M dwarf superflares are more X-ray-dominated than the Fiducial Flare assumption, the early-time UV photolysis signals (H2O, CH4) could weaken while ion-driven chemistry, which the neutral-only network cannot capture, might produce new long-lived species; the 4.2 micron CO2 response is the prediction most worth betting on.
  • The paper's approach of computing high-resolution emission spectra from time-dependent chemistry could be applied to other transiting brown dwarf systems with known flare rates to rank which targets most deserve rapid-response high-resolution follow-up.
  • Because the thermal effect is small and chemistry relaxes fast, the strongest test may not require chasing a live flare: monitoring the 4.2 micron region through multiple flare events and stacking post-flare epochs could recover the predicted CO2 enhancement even if single-epoch detection is marginal.
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 simulates the atmospheric response of a hot (Teff=2000 K), high-gravity (log g=5) cloudless brown dwarf in a short-period orbit around an active M dwarf to single superflares (10^33–10^35 erg). The authors couple the 1D chemical kinetics code VULCAN with the 1D radiative-convective code HELIOS, using the Fiducial Flare package for synthetic flare spectra and a MUSCLES spectrum for the quiescent host. They find that flares drive order-of-magnitude mixing-ratio changes for many species in the upper atmosphere (p ≲ 1 mbar), but that these changes relax within roughly a day. The thermal response is modest (up to ~20 K) and arises mainly through photochemically altered opacities. Using petitRADTRANS, they argue that the most observable signatures are H2O photolysis and CO2 enhancement near 4.2 μm, producing part-per-thousands changes in high-resolution (R=10^5) emission spectra within a few hours of the flare, though stellar contamination makes detection very challenging.

Significance. If the quantitative results are robust, this is the first self-consistent temperature–chemistry simulation of flare photochemistry in a brown dwarf companion. The paper extends prior hot-Jupiter work to a higher-temperature, higher-gravity regime and identifies a concrete observational target (CO2 at 4.2 μm and early H2O photolysis) with a clear warning that the effect is transient and requires high-resolution emission spectroscopy. The implementation is careful in several respects: the quiescent state is converged via 15 leapfrog iterations, a no-flare control run is included, the quiescent state is tested for drift after perturbation, and a timestep-convergence check is described. There is no parameter fitting or tuned constants, so the study is a genuinely forward model. The main weakness, acknowledged by the authors in Sec. 2.1.3, is that the synthetic flare SED is assumed rather than varied, and the entire photochemical response hinges on the sub-240 nm UV output, which real M-dwarf flares show large scatter in. Because the paper's headline numbers—order-of-magnitude abundance changes, part-per-thousands spectral contrasts, and the CO2/H2O ranking—scale directly with that UV f

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1.3 / Fig. 1] The Fiducial Flare SED is the load-bearing driver of all photochemistry: VULCAN is sensitive only to wavelengths shorter than ~240 nm (Sec. 2.1.1), so the result is set by the UV tail of a 9000 K blackbody plus line prescriptions. The authors explicitly concede that 'flares with significantly different spectral energy distributions (e.g. predominately X-ray) could produce different results,' yet no sensitivity test is presented. Because real M-dwarf superflares exhibit large scatter in FUV/optical and X-ray/FUV ratios (e.g., Brasseur et al. 2023; Namekata et al. 2017), a factor-of-few change in the 100–240 nm fluence at fixed bolometric energy would directly affect the claimed 'orders-of-magnitude' abundance changes, the part-per-thousands spectral contrasts, and the recovery timescales. I recommend either running at least one alternative SED (e.g., enhanced Ly-alpha, an X-ray-dominated
  2. [Sec. 3.3 / Fig. 5] The 36-hour simulations, which underpin all long-term recovery claims and the spectra in Sec. 4.2, are run with VULCAN only—no temperature–chemistry coupling. The authors justify this by noting that in the first two hours the coupled and uncoupled runs differ by <1% in mixing ratios, and say this likely holds across the full 36 hours. However, Sec. 3.2 shows that the flare-induced temperature perturbation persists beyond the two-hour window, lasting 'as long as the underlying chemical changes that drive it.' If temperature changes persist beyond 2 hours, the chemical relaxation at later times could be affected in a way that is not captured by the short coupled run. The <1% claim is also not documented in a figure or table; the reader is asked to take it on faith from an unspecified comparison. To make the long-term results load-bearing, the authors should either run a longer coupled test
  3. [Sec. 4.2 / Fig. 6] The spectral-change calculations use petitRADTRANS with the chemistry-only (uncoupled) mixing ratios and explicitly neglect temperature changes, because temperature fields are 'not available beyond two hours.' The authors argue the effect is small, but the claimed long-lived CO2 signal at 36 hours is several hundred ppm. A few Kelvin of temperature change in the line-forming region could produce comparable brightness fluctuations in a 2000 K brown dwarf, especially at high spectral resolution. Since CO2 at 4.2 μm is the paper's main observability recommendation, this omission should be quantified. One concrete test: take the coupled temperature profile at 2 hours, apply it to the 2-hour chemistry, and compare the resulting spectrum with the chemistry-only spectrum at the same time to see how much the CO2 signal changes. This would bound the magnitude of the effect without needing a long
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption reads 'T emperature change' (apparent typo for 'Temperature').
  2. [Sec. 4.1] 'introconversion between C2H2 and CH3' should likely be 'interconversion.'
  3. [Sec. 2.2.2] The sentence 'Both codes are also capable of simulating flare impacts independently from each other' is slightly ambiguous; clarify that each code can be run without updates from the other.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The statement that H2O's small relative change is due to its high initial abundance is clear, but the reader may wonder whether the absolute change in H2O column density is the relevant quantity for the spectral effect; consider making this explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward-modeling study using external open-source codes, with no fitted parameters or self-citation chain.

full rationale

This is a forward-modeling study. The authors couple VULCAN (Tsai et al. 2017, 2021) and HELIOS (Malik et al. 2017, 2019), drive the chemistry with the external Fiducial Flare package (Loyd et al. 2018), and post-process with petitRADTRANS (Mollière et al. 2019). None of the central quantitative claims — orders-of-magnitude mixing-ratio changes, sub-day recovery timescales, or the H2O-photolysis/CO2-enhancement observability ranking — are fitted to a target result or defined in terms of the outputs. The quiescent atmosphere is iterated to a stability criterion (temperature change <1 K, abundances <~1%) rather than imposed to match the flare response. The decision to drop temperature-chemistry coupling in the 36-hour runs is justified by an observed <1% difference in the first two hours, not by construction. The paper contains no self-citations by the present authors, and the load-bearing codes are external, benchmarked, and open source. The main sensitivity concern, the assumed Fiducial Flare SED (9000 K blackbody plus UV lines), is a stated modeling input, and the authors explicitly concede that 'flares with significantly different spectral energy distributions (e.g. predominately X-ray) could produce different results.' That is an acknowledged limitation and a possible robustness gap, but it is not circular: the flare input is not derived from the simulated abundances or spectra. Likewise, the stated omissions of X-ray photochemistry, charged-species chemistry, non-LTE effects, and particle radiation are limitations, not hidden circular dependencies. The paper's results are internally derived from the stated physical/chemical assumptions and external rate/opacity data, so no prediction reduces by definition to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a forward-modeling study: it defines a model system (T_eff = 2000 K, log g = 5.0 brown dwarf at 0.05 au from an M1.5V star), feeds an external synthetic flare spectrum into it, and evolves chemistry and temperature with published open-source codes. No parameters are fitted to force the conclusions; the ledger therefore records hand-chosen scenario inputs plus the modeling assumptions that gate the results. The most consequential items are the synthetic flare SED, the absence of ion chemistry and X-ray photochemistry, the HELIOS 246.6 nm opacity cutoff (which the authors state excludes roughly half of the flare energy from heating), and the unstated eddy diffusion coefficient, which controls the quench depths that set the quiescent baseline. The VULCAN network is also applied above its 2500 K tabulation, with an asserted but not demonstrated match to FastChem in the deep atmosphere.

free parameters (8)
  • Effective temperature of the model brown dwarf = 2000 K
    Hand-chosen to represent hot companions such as TOI-2119 and to fall on the Sonora-Bobcat grid; only a single temperature is modeled despite the paper's discussion of T_eff ~ 1600 K tests.
  • Surface gravity = log g = 5.0 (cgs)
    Hand-chosen to match high-gravity brown dwarf companions; gravity is never varied in the paper, so its role is inferred by comparison with lower-gravity studies.
  • Radius and mass of the brown dwarf = 1.08 R_Jup, about 47 M_Jup
    Adopted from TOI-2119 b to define the atmospheric column and scale height.
  • Orbital separation = 0.05 au
    Representative of known short-period (<10 day) brown dwarf companions; sets the irradiating flux together with the adopted stellar radius.
  • Flare bolometric energies = 10^33, 10^34, 10^35 erg
    Chosen by hand to span the observed superflare energy range on active M dwarfs (AU Mic, TOI-2119); the light-curve shape and spectral energy distribution come from the Fiducial Flare package.
  • Elemental abundances = Solar
    All elements set to Solar; no enrichment, depletion, or C/O variation is explored.
  • Vertical eddy diffusion coefficient Kzz = not stated in the paper
    Controls quench pressures and the vertical mixing profiles that define the quiescent baseline; the value or parameterization used in VULCAN is never reported, which also limits reproducibility.
  • Quiescent host-star spectrum = MUSCLES GJ 832 (M1.5V)
    Used as the proxy for the host star in all runs; a single spectral template, so the response to other activity levels or spectral types is not probed.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption VULCAN's HCNOSTiV neutral chemical network, tabulated at 500 to 2500 K, stays accurate above 2500 K because equilibrium chemistry dominates in the deep atmosphere and matches FastChem.
    Section 2.1.1: the model reaches near 6000 K at 10^3 bar, outside the network's tabulated range; the asserted match to FastChem is not demonstrated with a figure or table.
  • domain assumption The Fiducial Flare synthetic spectrum (9000 K blackbody plus UV lines, boxcar-plus-exponential light curve) represents real M dwarf flare output for photochemistry.
    Section 2.1.3: the authors concede real flares vary in UV-vs-optical energy and that predominantly X-ray flares could give different results; this input drives all photolysis rates and therefore the central chemistry claim.
  • domain assumption Radiation shortward of 246.6 nm is irrelevant to the modeled thermal structure, so roughly half the flare energy cannot heat the atmosphere.
    Section 2.2.2: HELIOS opacities start at 246.6 nm; the authors state the heating estimate is a 'definitive lower bound' with potential underestimates by up to a factor of 2, and more in the lowest-pressure layers.
  • domain assumption Charged-species chemistry and X-ray photochemistry can be neglected without changing the main conclusions.
    Section 2.1.1: VULCAN has no ion chemistry and photolysis cross-sections start near 10 nm; flare effects concentrate in the upper atmosphere where ions and X-rays would act. The authors list these as important future work.
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium holds throughout the irradiated atmosphere in HELIOS.
    Section 2.1.2: LTE is valid where collisions are frequent but not in the low-density upper atmosphere; non-LTE effects from flares are deferred to future work.
  • domain assumption No atmospheric escape; zero mass flux at top and bottom boundaries of the model atmosphere.
    Section 2.1.1: justified by the high gravity of brown dwarfs, conserving mass and elemental composition.
  • domain assumption Photodissociation energy deposits no heat; reactions carry no enthalpies in VULCAN.
    Section 2.1.1: endothermic and exothermic reactions have no thermodynamic impact and absorbed photon energy is fully consumed in dissociation, biasing the temperature response under flares.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulations of Flare Chemistry in Brown Dwarf Companions to Active M Dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/354UTHAT

@misc{pith2026250907063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulations of Flare Chemistry in Brown Dwarf Companions to Active M Dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/354UTHAT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07063}
}
abstract

Brown dwarfs that are short period ($<10\,$day) companions to actively flaring M dwarfs may provide a context to directly observe flare-driven photochemistry and structural changes in an extrasolar planet-like atmosphere. To assess the viability of directly observing flare impacts in the atmosphere of a brown dwarf, we perform self-consistent temperature-chemistry modeling of the atmospheric response to individual energetic superflares. We modified the existing open-source \texttt{VULCAN} chemical-kinetics and \texttt{HELIOS} radiative-transfer codes for this purpose. Similar to previous studies of flare impacts on hydrogen dominated atmospheres, we find flares are capable of orders-of-magnitude changes in the mixing abundances of many chemical species, including important opacity sources like CH$_4$ and CO$_2$. However, due to fast chemical timescales resulting from high temperatures and densities in brown dwarf atmospheres, these changes last for a short-period of time, generally less than a day, and are only plausibly observable via high resolution emission spectroscopy. We find that the most observable, short-term spectral changes in hot (T$_{\text{eff}}\sim2000\,$K), high-gravity ($\log{\text{g}}\sim5$), cloudless brown dwarfs are the photolysis of H$_2$O and enhancement of CO$_2$, which can result in part-per-thousands spectral changes in the hours after a flare.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07063 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectral and temporal evolution of Fiducial Flare synthetic flares. Left: The quiescent stellar spectrum (MUSCLES GJ 832, K. France et al. 2016) compared to the star plus flare spectrum at peak luminosity for flares of three different energies. Radiation longer than ∼ 240 nm is not capable of photodissociation and is effectively invisible to VULCAN, while radiation shorter than ∼ 240 nm is invisible to HELIOS due to… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temperature-coupled photochemistry in response to a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Change in temperature in response to flares of varying energy. Top left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Contribution of reactions and transport to the net change in abundance of CH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Photochemistry in response to single flares of varying energy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relative change in the high-resolution (R [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 452, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2719

    Danchi, W. 2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 452, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2719

    doi:10.1038/ngeo2719 2016

  2. [2]

    J., et al

    Argiroffi, C., Reale, F., Drake, J. J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0781-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0781-4 2019

  3. [3]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 4877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac809

    Baeyens, R., Konings, T., Venot, O., Carone, L., & Decin, L. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac809

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac809 2022

  4. [4]

    2020, A&A, 643, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038881

    Bashi, D., Zucker, S., Adibekyan, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038881

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038881 2020

  5. [5]

    A., Vos, J

    Biller, B. A., Vos, J. M., Zhou, Y., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1602

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1602 2024

  6. [6]

    E., Osten, R

    Brasseur, C. E., Osten, R. A., Tristan, I. I., & Kowalski, A. F. 2023, ApJ, 944, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab59

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acab59 2023

  7. [7]

    W., Irwin, J

    Carmichael, T. W., Irwin, J. M., Murgas, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1666

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1666 2022

  8. [8]

    W., & Dietrich, W

    Cliver, E. W., & Dietrich, W. F. 2013, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 3, A31, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2013053

    arXiv 2013

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad206a

    Cohen, O., Glocer, A., Garraffo, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad206a

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    France, K., Loyd, R. O. P., Youngblood, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 89, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/89

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    X., Wang, S., et al

    Gan, T., Wang, S. X., Wang, S., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.08313, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.08313

    2022 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    A., Barclay, T., Quintana, E

    Gilbert, E. A., Barclay, T., Quintana, E. V., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac23ca

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    A., David, T

    Gillen, E., Hillenbrand, L. A., David, T. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84b3

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Carolan, S., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & Manchester, W

    Hazra, G., Vidotto, A. A., Carolan, S., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & Manchester, W. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 5858, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3271

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    B., Shorttle, O., & Madhusudhan, N

    Hobbs, R., Rimmer, P. B., Shorttle, O., & Madhusudhan, N. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1839

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Charbonneau, D., Esquerdo, G

    Irwin, J. M., Charbonneau, D., Esquerdo, G. A., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad9a3

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Jackman, J. A. G., Wheatley, P. J., Bayliss, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2496

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Kaltenegger, L., & Traub, W. A. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 519, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/519

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, A&A, 631, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935113

    Kiefer, F., H´ ebrard, G., Sahlmann, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935113

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    K., Cruz, K

    Kiman, R., Faherty, J. K., Cruz, K. L., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 277, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf561

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2018,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1804.025

    Kitzmann, D., & Stock, J. 2018,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1804.025

    2018

  14. [22]

    2022, A&A, 667, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243436

    Konings, T., Baeyens, R., & Decin, L. 2022, A&A, 667, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243436

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Kotorashvili, K., & Blackman, E. G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.17916, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.17916

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3f35

    Lingam, M., & Loeb, A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3f35

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    2022, The Planetary Science Journal, 3, 1, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac3f3c

    Locci, D., Petralia, A., Micela, G., et al. 2022, The Planetary Science Journal, 3, 1, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac3f3c

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Miguel, Y., Tsai, S.-M., et al

    Louca, A. J., Miguel, Y., Tsai, S.-M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1220

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Loyd, R. O. P., France, K., Youngblood, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae2bd

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    M., et al

    Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., Mendon¸ ca, J. M., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1084

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    M., et al

    Malik, M., Grosheintz, L., Mendon¸ ca, J. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/56

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    2021,, Sonora Bobcat Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5063476

    Marley, M., Saumon, D., Morley, C., et al. 2021,, Sonora Bobcat Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5063476

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Vos, J

    McCarthy, A. M., Vos, J. M., Muirhead, P. S., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 981, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9eaf

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.04242, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.04242 Molli` ere, P., Wardenier, J

    Ment, K., & Charbonneau, D. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.04242, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.04242 Molli` ere, P., Wardenier, J. P., van Boekel, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935470

    2023 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    Moses, J. I. 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 372, 20130073, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2013.0073

    2014

  26. [34]

    D., Pascucci, I., & Apai, D

    Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., & Apai, D. 2015, ApJ, 798, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/112

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b34

    Namekata, K., Sakaue, T., Watanabe, K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b34

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 5681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1734

    Evans, E. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 5681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1734

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.11039, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2207.11039

    Pietras, M., Falewicz, R., Siarkowski, M., Bicz, K., & Pre´ s, P. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.11039, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2207.11039

    2022 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.04648, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.04648

    Pinamonti, M., Sozzetti, A., Maldonado, J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.04648, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.04648

    2022 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    M., Sip˝ ocz, B

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., G¨ unther, H. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M

    Rackham, B. V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa08c 16Gibbs et al

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Zamyatina, M., Mayne, N

    Ridgway, R. J., Zamyatina, M., Mayne, N. J., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 2472, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3105

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2021, A&A, 653, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140968

    Sabotta, S., Schlecker, M., Chaturvedi, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140968

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Sagan, C., & Salpeter, E. E. 1976, ApJS, 32, 737, doi: 10.1086/190414

    1976 doi

  36. [44]

    2010, Astrobiology, 10, 751, doi: 10.1089/ast.2009.0376

    Hawley, S. 2010, Astrobiology, 10, 751, doi: 10.1089/ast.2009.0376

    2010

  37. [45]

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

    Stock, J. W., Kitzmann, D., & Patzer, A. B. C. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2623

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, Astrobiology, 19, 64, doi: 10.1089/ast.2017.1794

    Davenport, J. 2019, Astrobiology, 19, 64, doi: 10.1089/ast.2017.1794

    2019

  39. [47]

    Triaud, A. H. M. J. 2021, in ExoFrontiers; Big Questions in Exoplanetary Science, ed. N. Madhusudhan, 6–1, doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/abfa8fch6

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    R., Grosheintz, L., et al

    Tsai, S.-M., Lyons, J. R., Grosheintz, L., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/228/2/20

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 264, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29bc

    Tsai, S.-M., Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 264, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29bc

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Tsai, S.-M., Lee, E. K. H., Powell, D., et al. 2023, Nature, 617, 483, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05902-2 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2019, A&A, 623, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834264

    Vida, K., Leitzinger, M., Kriskovics, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834264

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.10121. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.10121

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    E., Latham, D

    Vowell, N., Rodriguez, J. E., Latham, D. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09795, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09795

    2025 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    E., M¨ uller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al

    Wood, B. E., M¨ uller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfda5

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    W., Wang, J., Ruffio, J.-B., et al

    Xuan, J. W., Wang, J., Ruffio, J.-B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8673

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    S., Palmer, P

    Yates, J. S., Palmer, P. I., Biller, B., & Cockell, C. S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/184

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.