Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

On a single transit of the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-76 b, new Keck observations show that day-to-night winds are strongly asymmetric in the deep iron-bearing layer but nearly absent in the higher layers traced by sodium and calcium.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 21:38 UTC pith:JRBNWLUK

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful KPF pipeline paper with a robust Fe I detection, but the headline claim of altitude-dependent circulation rests on an unmotivated null result for Na I and Ca II. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.14175 v2 pith:JRBNWLUK submitted 2025-11-18 astro-ph.EP

The KPF SURFS-UP Survey I: Transmission Spectroscopy of WASP-76 b

Aaron Householder , Fei Dai , Aurora Kesseli , Andrew W. Howard , Samuel Halverson , Benjamin J. Fulton , Yapeng Zhang , Alex S. Polanski
show 20 more authors
Julie Inglis Nick Tusay Aaron Bello-Arufe Ashley D. Baker Kevin B. Burdge Jerry Edelstein Steven Giacalone Steven R. Gibson Gregory J. Gilbert Luke B. Handley Howard Isaacson Russ R. Laher Erik A. Petigura Kodi Rider Arpita Roy Ryan A. Rubenzahl Chris Smith Andrew Vanderburg Josh Walawender Lauren M. Weiss
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords ultra-hot Jupiterstransmission spectroscopyWASP-76 bKeck Planet Finderatmospheric circulationcross-correlation techniquerefractory speciesaltitude-dependent dynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper introduces the KPF SURFS-UP survey and applies its new reduction pipeline to a single transit of WASP-76 b, producing some of the highest-signal-to-noise detections of refractory species yet seen. The authors confirm that iron absorption shifts strongly between ingress and egress, the signature of a day-to-night wind, but find no such asymmetry in sodium or calcium. They interpret this as evidence that atmospheric circulation in WASP-76 b is altitude-dependent: neutral metals like iron trace deeper layers with strong winds, while sodium and calcium probe higher layers where winds are weak. If correct, these results support general circulation model predictions of decreasing wind asymmetry with altitude and suggest that high-altitude jets invoked for other ultra-hot Jupiters are not universal.

Core claim

In a single 2023 transit of WASP-76 b observed with the Keck Planet Finder, the paper measures the cross-correlation signals of several atomic species and tracks their radial-velocity centroids from ingress to egress. Fe I absorption is blue-shifted by about 4.3 km/s near ingress and 11.3 km/s near egress, a strong phase-dependent asymmetry consistent with earlier ESPRESSO and HARPS data. Na I and Ca II show no comparable asymmetry, with ingress and egress velocities within a few km/s of each other. The paper argues that this dichotomy arises because the strong Na I resonance doublet and Ca II lines become opaque at much lower pressures, so they probe higher atmospheric layers where the day-

What carries the argument

The phase-resolved cross-correlation function (CCF) of each atomic species, computed from continuum-normalized, telluric-corrected KPF spectra at R~97,000. The paper measures the CCF centroid in two phase windows near ingress and egress; a change in centroid velocity between the two windows is the observable diagnostic of a day-to-night wind. Atmospheric templates are generated with petitRADTRANS assuming chemical equilibrium, and the same CCF analysis is applied to Fe I, Cr I, Na I, Ca II, K I, and other species to compare dynamics at different altitudes.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the assumption that the KPF observations are sensitive enough to have detected a Na I or Ca II ingress-egress asymmetry of the size seen in Fe I (~7 km/s); the paper never demonstrates this with an injection-recovery test or an upper-limit calculation, so the reported symmetry in these species could reflect insufficient sensitivity rather than a real atmospheric difference.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the same transit data with a sensitivity test: inject a synthetic asymmetric signal (e.g., a ~7 km/s ingress-egress shift) into the Na I and Ca II line profiles and run the same cross-correlation and Gaussian-fitting pipeline. If the pipeline fails to recover the injected asymmetry, then the observed symmetry of Na I and Ca II is not evidence for weak high-altitude winds; if it recovers the asymmetry, the non-detection is robust. A second falsifier is a future transit observation with higher SNR or different phase sampling that either confirms symmetry or reveals an asymmetry in Na

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • WASP-76 b's atmosphere has at least two dynamically distinct layers: a deep layer traced by Fe I and Cr I with strong day-to-night winds, and a higher layer traced by Na I and Ca II with much weaker winds.
  • The observed decrease of asymmetry with altitude matches general circulation model predictions, indicating that the high-altitude super-rotating jet invoked for WASP-121 b is not a universal feature of ultra-hot Jupiters.
  • The Fe I blue-shift asymmetry appears stable over a decade, from 2012 HARPS-N to 2023 KPF observations, suggesting a persistent circulation pattern.
  • KPF, with the public reduction pipeline, can reach some of the highest signal-to-noise detections of refractory species in a single transit, enabling population-level surveys of ultra-hot Jupiters.
  • The diversity of circulation patterns among ultra-hot Jupiters motivates broader surveys to connect atmospheric dynamics to planetary and stellar properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The non-detection of Na I and Ca II asymmetry is only meaningful if the dataset is sensitive enough to detect an asymmetry as large as the one seen in Fe I (~7 km/s); the paper does not provide an injection-recovery or upper-limit analysis, so the layered interpretation could be vulnerable to sensitivity limits rather than a real atmospheric difference.
  • A natural follow-up is to apply the same CCF phase-binning to the weak K I signal, detected at SNR 6.4, to see whether potassium, a higher-altitude tracer, also lacks an ingress-egress asymmetry.
  • If the two-layer picture holds, the altitude at which the asymmetry decays could be mapped by comparing many species with different line opacities, turning WASP-76 b into a probe of vertical wind shear in ultra-hot Jupiters.
  • The public pipeline could be applied to archival KPF data of other ultra-hot Jupiters to test whether the altitude-asymmetry trend holds across the population.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the KPF SURFS-UP survey and a public reduction pipeline for the Keck Planet Finder, then applies it to a single transit of WASP-76 b. Using cross-correlation of high-resolution spectra with petitRADTRANS templates, the authors report high-SNR detections of Fe I, Ca II, Na I, Cr I, and K I. They confirm the well-known ingress–egress asymmetry in Fe I and report 'no measurable ingress–egress asymmetry' in Na I and Ca II. This difference is interpreted as evidence that neutral metals such as Fe I trace deeper atmospheric layers with stronger day-to-night winds, while Na I and Ca II probe higher layers where the asymmetry is weaker. The paper also places this result in the context of previous ESPRESSO/HARPS work and GCM predictions for ultra-hot Jupiters.

Significance. If the differential asymmetry is robust, the paper provides an important observational constraint on altitude-dependent circulation in WASP-76 b and demonstrates that KPF can deliver high-SNR optical transmission spectroscopy. The public pipeline and the systematic testing of multiple spectral-combination strategies (wavelength interpolation, independent CCF co-addition, LSF forward modeling) are genuine strengths, and the Fe I result independently confirms a prominent literature claim with a new instrument. The main limitation is that the paper's most novel claim—the absence of Na I/Ca II asymmetry—rests entirely on a null result that is not quantified with an upper limit or an injection-recovery test, and the quoted line-center shifts are smaller than the admitted fitting systematics.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.1, §6] The claim 'no measurable ingress–egress asymmetry in Na I and Ca II' is load-bearing for the altitude-dependent circulation interpretation, but no sensitivity analysis is presented. The quoted ingress–egress differences are 1.9 km/s for Na I and 0.5 km/s for Ca II, while §5.1 states that 'reasonable changes to the fitting method could shift the recovered line centers of Na I and Ca II by up to a few km/s.' A difference smaller than the fitting systematic is not evidence of absence. To support the central claim, the authors should compute an upper limit on the asymmetry, or perform an injection-recovery test that injects a Fe I-like ~7 km/s phase shift into the Na I and Ca II CCFs at the same phase bins and demonstrates that it would be recovered. This is especially important because §6 notes that ESPRESSO found weak asymmetries in Na I and Ca II, so the null result is not uncontested.
  2. [§5.1] The line centers quoted in §5.1 (e.g., Fe I ingress = -4.3 km/s, egress = -11.3 km/s; Na I ingress = -4.9 km/s, egress = -3.0 km/s; Ca II ingress = -2.1 km/s, egress = -2.6 km/s) are given without formal uncertainties. The stacked CCFs are acknowledged to be highly non-Gaussian, so a single Gaussian fit cannot be assumed to provide a reliable centroid. The paper should report bootstrap or multi-model fit uncertainties for each line center and show the stacked CCF residuals with confidence bands. Without these errors, the significance of the Fe I versus Na I/Ca II difference cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / §6] The abstract states that the results are 'qualitatively consistent with GCM predictions of decreasing velocity asymmetry with altitude,' but §6 emphasizes that current GCMs struggle to reproduce the Fe I blue-shift evolution and does not cite a specific GCM calculation for the Na I/Ca II asymmetry. Please either substantiate this claim with a citation to a specific prediction or soften the wording.
  2. [Figure 5] The caption lists the Ca II ingress/egress values in the order '-2.6 km/s' and '-2.1 km/s', while the text gives ingress = -2.1 and egress = -2.6. Please make the ordering consistent and clarify which value corresponds to which phase window.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The '+1' in the PCA reconstruction equation is not defined. If it represents adding a constant vector of ones, this should be stated explicitly; otherwise the equation is ambiguous.
  4. [§3.4] Several free choices (spline window size, continuum threshold 0.9875, PCA k = 3) are described, but no sensitivity test of the recovered line centers to these choices is shown. Given the velocity-based interpretation, a brief statement or figure showing that the Fe I asymmetry and Na I/Ca II null are stable to these choices would strengthen the paper.
  5. [§5.1] The paper appropriately cautions that the SNR values in the Kp–vsys maps are not true significances, but the abstract and text still use 'SNR = 14.5' as a headline detection value. Please ensure the wording consistently avoids implying these are Gaussian significances.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Fe I asymmetry and Na I/Ca II null are independent measurements; the admitted non-Gaussianity is a sensitivity limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained. The Fe I ingress–egress asymmetry is measured from new KPF spectra by cross-correlating against petitRADTRANS templates generated from externally specified line lists and adopted physical parameters (Section 4.1); the measured line-center shifts are compared with independent prior measurements, not fitted to reproduce them. The Na I/Ca II null asymmetry is a null result from the same CCFs, and Section 5.1 explicitly cautions that the stacked CCFs are 'highly non-Gaussian' and that 'reasonable changes to the fitting method could shift the recovered line centers of Na I and Ca II by up to a few km/s.' That admitted lack of a sensitivity/injection-recovery test is a statistical robustness weakness, but it does not make the conclusion circular: the paper does not define Na I/Ca II symmetry into the fit or rename the Fe I fit as a prediction. The template assumption 'Following Kesseli et al. (2022), we assumed an isothermal P-T profile...' and the in-prep citation for KPF systematics are self-citations, but they are not load-bearing for the central claim: the detections are evaluated against external line lists and orbital ephemerides, and the altitude-dependent interpretation rests on line-formation arguments stated in Sections 5–6, not on a uniqueness claim imported from the authors' prior work. Section 6 additionally discloses that the difference with ESPRESSO 'may reflect genuine epoch-to-epoch variability or simply the low detection significance of the earlier asymmetry,' further confirming the discussion is framed as an interpretation rather than a forced result. No equation in the paper reduces a prediction to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The observational analysis is built on standard high-resolution spectroscopy tools and externally measured quantities (orbital parameters, line lists). The main hand-chosen settings are data-cleaning parameters (PCA rank, continuum thresholds) and the template atmosphere; none of these are fitted to the physical claims, but they influence the residual spectra. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • PCA components removed k = 3
    Section 3.8: chosen after experimentation to suppress instrumental drift while preserving the planetary signal. This choice affects residual spectra and detected amplitudes.
  • Continuum normalization threshold = 0.9875
    Section 3.4: ratio threshold for identifying continuum points in the iterative spline fit; chosen by hand.
  • Spline window size = 10 Å (most orders)
    Section 3.4: window over which spline knots are spaced for continuum normalization; adjusted for a few orders.
  • Phase-binning windows for asymmetry = ϕ ∈ [-0.038,-0.020] and [0.020,0.038]
    Section 5.1: chosen windows for co-adding CCFs near ingress and egress; line centers shift under different fitting choices.
  • Molecfit fit/mask regions
    Section 3.7: user-selected inclusion/exclusion regions for telluric fitting; the paper notes this requires user input.
  • Template atmosphere parameters = T=3000 K, gray cloud at 0.01 bar, CIA
    Section 4.1: assumed model parameters for petitRADTRANS templates; affect reported amplitudes but not detection significances.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The template atmosphere (isothermal T=3000 K, gray cloud at 0.01 bar, CIA, chemical equilibrium abundances from easyCHEM) is adequate for cross-correlation detection of the target species.
    Section 4.1: Templates are generated with petitRADTRANS using these assumed parameters; the detection significance depends on how well the template matches the planet's real spectrum.
  • domain assumption Line lists (Kurucz 1979; Burrows & Volobuyev 2003; McKemmish et al. 2024) are accurate for the relevant species in the KPF wavelength range.
    Section 4.1: Templates rely on these line lists; any wavelength or strength errors would degrade the cross-correlation.
  • domain assumption Removing the first 3 principal components in PCA does not significantly remove the planetary signal because it is Doppler-shifted in the stellar rest frame.
    Section 3.8: PCA cleaning is used to remove instrumental drift; if the planetary signal projected onto these modes, it would be suppressed.
  • domain assumption The orbital parameters (Kp, vsys, ephemeris) from Ehrenreich et al. (2020) and Kokori et al. (2023) are correct.
    Section 4.1 uses these values to place spectra in the stellar rest frame and to compute expected planetary velocity; significant errors would shift the expected signal location and affect the Kp-vsys map.
  • domain assumption Telluric correction using Molecfit with the Allart et al. (2017) configuration is reliable in the unmasked wavelength regions.
    Section 3.7: Telluric correction is applied to avoid contamination; residual telluric lines could mimic or distort atmospheric signals.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18940 in / 14917 out tokens · 135501 ms · 2026-08-03T21:38:11.361026+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce the KPF SURFS-UP (Spectroscopy of the Upper-atmospheres and ReFractory Species in Ultra-hot Planets) Survey, a high-resolution survey to investigate the atmospheric composition and dynamics of a sample of ultra-hot Jupiters with the Keck Planet Finder (KPF). Due to the unique design of KPF, we developed a publicly available pipeline for KPF that performs blaze removal, continuum normalization, order stitching, science spectra combination, telluric correction, and atmospheric detection via cross-correlation. As a first demonstration, we applied this pipeline to a transit of WASP-76 b and achieved some of the highest signal-to-noise detections of refractory species in WASP-76 b to date (e.g., Fe I is detected at a SNR of 14.5). We confirm previous observations of an asymmetry in Fe I absorption, but find no measurable ingress-egress asymmetry in Na I and Ca II. Together, these results suggest variations within different layers of the atmosphere of WASP-76 b: neutral metals such as Fe I trace deeper regions with stronger asymmetries, while Na I and Ca II probe regions higher in the atmosphere where the ingress-egress asymmetries are weaker. Unlike some other ultra-hot Jupiters, our results are qualitatively consistent with GCM predictions of decreasing velocity asymmetry with altitude and do not require a high-altitude super-rotating jet that has been invoked for other planets (e.g., WASP-121 b). These results suggest that atmospheric circulation patterns in ultra-hot Jupiters may be more diverse than previously thought, highlighting the need for broader surveys to study how atmospheric dynamics depend on planetary and stellar properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.14175 by Aaron Bello-Arufe, Aaron Householder, Alex S. Polanski, Andrew Vanderburg, Andrew W. Howard, Arpita Roy, Ashley D. Baker, Aurora Kesseli, Benjamin J. Fulton, Chris Smith, Erik A. Petigura, Fei Dai, Gregory J. Gilbert, Howard Isaacson, Jerry Edelstein, Josh Walawender, Julie Inglis, Kevin B. Burdge, Kodi Rider, Lauren M. Weiss, Luke B. Handley, Nick Tusay, Russ R. Laher, Ryan A. Rubenzahl, Samuel Halverson, Steven Giacalone, Steven R. Gibson, Yapeng Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: KPF spectra of WASP-76 extracted by version 2.7.1 of the KPF Data Reduction Pipeline. This plot shows only one of the three science spectra (SCI2), although all three spectra have similar looking spectra. Each color corresponds to a single diffraction order, and each row displays a distinct wavelength region for visual clarity. Before performing high-resolution atmospheric characterization, we performed se… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A general overview of the reduction steps for our pipeline. The three science spectra (SCI1, SCI2, and SCI3) are processed independently through blaze removal (Section 3.3), continuum normalization (Section 3.4), and or￾der merging (Section 3.5), and then combined (Section 3.6) before telluric correction (Section 3.7) and the subsequent atmospheric analysis (Section 4). While the specific imple￾mentation o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An example of the continuum normalization steps for a single order of a SCI2 spectrum of WASP-76 on the red CCD with significant fringing. First, the extracted 1D spectrum (blue) is divided by the smooth lamp pattern to produce the blaze-corrected spectrum (green). By compar￾ing the blaze-corrected flux to a constant flux of 1.0 (top black dashed line), one can see a broad residual trend in the blaze corre… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The results of our reduction pipeline for the first ten orders on the green chip. The top panel displays the raw extracted spectra from SCI2 as a function of the orbital phase of WASP-76 b, with each row representing a different exposure in the stellar rest frame. The bottom panel shows the same wavelength coverage after applying our reduction pipeline and dividing the flux by the out-of-transit average. T… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Residual cross-correlation map for Fe I, Cr I, Na I, and Ca II from a single KPF transit of WASP-76 b, shown in the planet rest frame (0 km s−1 is the green dashed line). The signal (in ppm) is plotted as a function of orbital phase (vertical axis) and radial velocity (horizontal axis), with each cross-correlation function (CCF) normalized by the out-of-transit average. The horizontal dashed lines ma… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two–dimensional Kp–vsys map showing the detection significance of various species. For Fe I, Ca II, Na I, Cr I, and K I, the large yellow residuals near the expected planetary velocity (black dashed lines) indicate an atmospheric absorption signal. While these SNR values are sometimes interpreted in the literature as σ detections, we caution against interpreting these SNR values as true σ-significances, as… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Hydrogen airglow from an escaping ultrahot Jupiter atmosphere

    astro-ph.EP 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    First detection of Hα emission from KELT-9 b's escaping atmosphere shows double-peaked profile with self-absorption, indicating vigorous outflow with mass-loss rate above 10^13 g/s.

  2. HAT-P-70b through the Eyes of MAROON-X: Constraining Elemental Abundances of Metals and Insights on Atmosphere Dynamics

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    New MAROON-X observations of HAT-P-70b detect multiple neutral and ionized metals with day-to-night wind signatures and demonstrate that ionization-aware retrievals yield abundance ratios closer to solar values except...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al

    Akeson, R. L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 989, doi: 10.1086/672273

    doi:10.1086/672273 2013

  2. [2]

    2017, A&A, 606, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730814

    Allart, R., Lovis, C., Pino, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730814

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730814 2017

  3. [3]

    C., Arns, J

    Barden, S. C., Arns, J. A., & Colburn, W. S. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3355, Optical Astronomical Instrumentation, ed. S. D’Odorico, 866–876, doi: 10.1117/12.316806

    work page doi:10.1117/12.316806 1998

  4. [4]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ded

    Beltz, H., & Rauscher, E. 2024, ApJ, 976, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ded

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ded 2024

  5. [5]

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

    doi:10.1038/nature11161 2012

  6. [6]

    2003, ApJ, 583, 985, doi: 10.1086/345412

    Burrows, A., & Volobuyev, M. 2003, ApJ, 583, 985, doi: 10.1086/345412

    doi:10.1086/345412 2003

  7. [7]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 4422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2994

    Gandhi, S. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2994

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2994 2019

  8. [8]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca614 2023

  9. [9]

    L., McElroy, D

    Christiansen, J. L., McElroy, D. L., Harbut, M., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 186, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ade3c2

    doi:10.3847/psj/ade3c2 2025

  10. [10]

    W., Halverson, S., et al

    Dai, F., Howard, A. W., Halverson, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5a7d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad5a7d 2024

  11. [11]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 3592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1692

    Elsworth, Y. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1692

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1692 2014

  12. [12]

    2020, Nature, 580, 597, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2107-1

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2107-1 2020

  13. [13]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1744

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1744 2022

  14. [14]

    Gibson, S. R. 2013, PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

    2013

  15. [15]

    R., Howard, A

    Gibson, S. R., Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J

    2016

  16. [16]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 990870, doi: 10.1117/12.2233334

    doi:10.1117/12.2233334

  17. [17]

    R., Howard, A

    Gibson, S. R., Howard, A. W., Roy, A., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J

    2018

  18. [18]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107025X, doi: 10.1117/12.2311565

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2311565

  19. [19]

    R., Howard, A

    Gibson, S. R., Howard, A. W., Rider, K., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. C. J

    2020

  20. [20]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 1144742, doi: 10.1117/12.2561783

    doi:10.1117/12.2561783

  21. [21]

    R., Howard, A

    Gibson, S. R., Howard, A. W., Rider, K., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J

    2024

  22. [22]

    Motohara, & J

    Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D. Vernet, 1309609, doi: 10.1117/12.3017841

    doi:10.1117/12.3017841

  23. [23]

    J., Mulders, G

    Hippke, M., David, T. J., Mulders, G. D., & Heller, R. 2019, AJ, 158, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3984

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3984 2019

  24. [24]

    Frizzle: Combining spectra or images by forward modeling

    Hogg, D. W., & Casey, A. R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.11011, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.11011

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.11011 2024

  25. [25]

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

    Kesseli, A. Y., Beltz, H., Rauscher, E., & Snellen, I. A. G. 2024, ApJ, 975, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad772f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad772f 2024

  26. [26]

    Y., & Snellen, I

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe047 2021

  27. [27]

    Y., Snellen, I

    Kesseli, A. Y., Snellen, I. A. G., Casasayas-Barris, N., Molli` ere, P., & S´ anchez-L´ opez, A. 2022, AJ, 163, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4336

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac4336 2022

  28. [28]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.05392, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.05392

    Kipping, D., & Benneke, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.05392, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.05392

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.05392 2025

  29. [29]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    Kokori, A., Tsiaras, A., Edwards, B., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4 2023

  30. [30]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1979, ApJS, 40, 1, doi: 10.1086/190589

    doi:10.1086/190589 1979

  31. [31]

    Hodgkin, S. T. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab134

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab134 2021

  32. [32]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21364, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21364

    Lei, E., & Molli` ere, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21364, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21364

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.21364 2024

  33. [33]

    Li, Y., Huber, D., Ong, J. M. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc737

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc737 2025

  34. [34]

    J., Rider, K., Thorne, J., et al

    Lilley, S. J., Rider, K., Thorne, J., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J

    2022

  35. [35]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121844K, doi: 10.1117/12.2628818

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2628818

  36. [36]

    G., & Popov, E

    Loewen, E. G., & Popov, E. 1997, Diffraction gratings and applications

    1997

  37. [37]

    D., Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D

    Lothringer, J. D., Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8a9 The KPF SURFS-UP Survey I15

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf8a9 2021

  38. [38]

    A., Van Zandt, J., et al

    Lubin, J., Petigura, E. A., Van Zandt, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad79ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad79ed 2024

  39. [39]

    K., Bowesman, C

    McKemmish, L. K., Bowesman, C. A., Kefala, K., et al. 2024, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 3, 565, doi: 10.1093/rasti/rzae037 Molli` ere, P., van Boekel, R., Bouwman, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629800 Molli` ere, P., Wardenier, J. P., van Boekel, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935470

    doi:10.1093/rasti/rzae037 2024

  40. [40]

    R., Bean, J

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833059 2018

  41. [41]

    2023, Nature, 619, 491, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06134-0

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06134-0 2023

  42. [42]

    M., Aigrain, S., & Buchhave, L

    Rajpaul, V. M., Aigrain, S., & Buchhave, L. A. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3960, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3599

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3599 2020

  43. [43]

    A., Halverson, S., Walawender, J., et al

    Rubenzahl, R. A., Halverson, S., Walawender, J., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 125002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad0b30

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad0b30 2023

  44. [44]

    A., Dai, F., Halverson, S., et al

    Rubenzahl, R. A., Dai, F., Halverson, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad70b5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad70b5 2024

  45. [45]

    B., Kempton, E

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb141 2023

  46. [46]

    B., Kempton, E

    Savel, A. B., Kempton, E. M.-R., Malik, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac423f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac423f 2022

  47. [47]

    M., & Bouchy, F

    Schmidt, T. M., & Bouchy, F. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae920

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae920 2024

  48. [48]

    Schroeder, D. J. 1970, PASP, 82, 1253, doi: 10.1086/129030

    work page doi:10.1086/129030 1970

  49. [49]

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

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08664-1 2025

  50. [50]

    P., & Guillot, T

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020101 2002

  51. [51]

    M., Wishnow, E

    Sirk, M. M., Wishnow, E. H., Weisfeiler, M., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J

    2018

  52. [52]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107026F, doi: 10.1117/12.2312945

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2312945

  53. [53]

    2015, A&A, 576, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423932

    Smette, A., Sana, H., Noll, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423932

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423932 2015

  54. [54]

    2010, Nature, 465, 1049, doi: 10.1038/nature09111

    Albrecht, S. 2010, Nature, 465, 1049, doi: 10.1038/nature09111

    doi:10.1038/nature09111 2010

  55. [55]

    2022, A&A, 662, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141799

    Stangret, M., Casasayas-Barris, N., Pall´ e, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141799

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141799 2022

  56. [56]

    M., Zapatero Osorio, M

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039511 2021

  57. [57]

    A., & Fischer, D

    Valenti, J. A., & Fischer, D. A. 2005, ApJS, 159, 141, doi: 10.1086/430500

    doi:10.1086/430500 2005

  58. [58]

    E., et al

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

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  59. [59]

    P., Parmentier, V., Lee, E

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1797 2021

  60. [60]

    2015, A&A, 577, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525729

    Pepe, F. 2015, A&A, 577, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525729

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525729 2015

  61. [61]

    Brewer, J. M. 2019, AJ, 157, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1b47

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab1b47 2019

  62. [62]

    L., Hogg, D

    Zhao, L. L., Hogg, D. W., Bedell, M., & Fischer, D. A. 2021, AJ, 161, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd105

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd105 2021