pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07598 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM

Recognition: unknown

On the Information Content of Ariel Transmission Spectra: Reassessing the Tier System

Michael Radica , Nicolas B. Cowan , Ryan Cloutier , Leo Yang Wang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords Ariel missionexoplanet atmospherestransmission spectraatmospheric retrievalshot Saturnwarm Neptunesub-NeptuneTier system
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ariel's Tier 1 survey data already constrains water and carbon dioxide abundances in giant exoplanet atmospheres to useful levels even with clouds.

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

The paper tests the assumption that Ariel's higher-precision observation tiers are required for meaningful atmospheric characterization by simulating spectra and retrievals for three benchmark planets. It finds that the lowest-precision Tier 1 data delivers constraints on H2O and CO2 better than 1.5 dex for hot-Saturns and warm-Neptunes, regardless of cloud presence. This matters because it implies the broad Tier 1 survey of about 1000 planets can already yield key chemical insights without needing Tier 2 or 3 data for every target. For temperate sub-Neptunes, Tier 1 suffices only for cloud-free cases to constrain CH4, while cloudy atmospheres demand at least Tier 2 precision, though the required number of transits may limit inclusion.

Core claim

Simulations of Ariel transmission spectra for a hot-Saturn, warm-Neptune, and temperate sub-Neptune at different tiers, followed by retrievals, show that Tier 1-quality observations suffice for constraints better than 1.5 dex on H2O and CO2 in giant planets irrespective of clouds. Higher tiers yield incremental precision gains and enable detections of additional molecules such as H2S and CO in certain scenarios. Tier 1 data constrains CH4 in a cloud-free temperate sub-Neptune, but at least Tier 2 precision is needed if clouds are present, and the transit count required may prove prohibitive for Tier 1 inclusion.

What carries the argument

Atmospheric retrievals performed on simulated Ariel transmission spectra generated at Tier 1, 2, and 3 precisions for three benchmark planets.

If this is right

  • Important chemical insights on H2O and CO2 abundances are already obtainable from the Tier 1 survey for giant planets.
  • Tiers 2 and 3 provide incremental increases in precision and enable detection of additional molecules like H2S and CO in some cases.
  • Tier 1 observations suffice to constrain CH4 in cloud-free temperate sub-Neptunes but require at least Tier 2 precision if clouds are present.
  • The number of transits needed for adequate precision on temperate sub-Neptunes may limit their inclusion even in the Tier 1 survey.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Survey planners could consider allocating more Tier 1 targets to giant planets to maximize early chemical returns.
  • Similar tiered missions might benefit from testing whether lower-precision data suffices for population-level trends in specific planet types.
  • Clouds appear as the dominant factor limiting characterization of smaller planets, suggesting targeted cloud studies could improve tier planning.
  • Validation against actual Ariel data will be essential to confirm that simulated noise and degeneracy assumptions hold in practice.

Load-bearing premise

The forward-model spectra and retrieval framework accurately represent Ariel's real noise properties, cloud effects, and parameter degeneracies for the chosen benchmark planets.

What would settle it

Performing the same retrieval analysis on real Ariel Tier 1 observations of a hot-Saturn and checking whether the resulting H2O and CO2 abundance uncertainties fall below 1.5 dex.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07598 by Leo Yang Wang, Michael Radica, Nicolas B. Cowan, Ryan Cloutier.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example full-resolution Ariel transmission spectrum of the hot-Saturn WASP-39 b simulated at Tier 2 precision (black error bars). The underlying atmosphere model assumes chemical equilibrium with a solar C/O ratio (0.54), 10× solar metallicity, and no clouds. The opacity contributions of individual species to the total spectrum are shown with different colours and represent the major chemical species with … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Simulated cloud-free atmosphere spectra and Tier 2 Ariel observations for the three planets considered in this study. The number of transits required to reach Tier 2 pre￾cision is noted for each planet. Simulated observations are shown with black error bars (wavelength bin widths are omit￾ted for visual clarity), and are binned to R=10, R=50, and R=10 (i.e., Tier 2 binning) for NIRSpec, AIRS Ch0, and AIRS … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Detectability of H2O in the atmosphere of a WASP-39 b-like planet with Ariel as a function of observational precision. Top: Retrieved abundance of H2O as a function of observational precision (i.e., number of stacked transits — assuming errors scale as 1/√ N) for cloudy (orange) and cloud-free (blue) atmospheres. The injected abundance is denoted with a horizontal dashed grey line, and the number of transi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Summary of Ariel’s detection capabilities across all tests conducted in this study. The colour denotes the Tier at which a given chemical species is consistently detectable for a given atmosphere setup. White shading means the species is not detectable whereas grey means that a species was not included in the atmosphere model. H2O and CO2 are robustly detectable in a WASP-39 b-like or HAT-P-11 b￾like plane… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The European Space Agency's Ariel mission will conduct a survey of the atmospheric properties of exoplanets around bright stars. The mission is nominally divided into three Tiers. The Tier 1 survey will consist of low-precision observations of ~1000 planets, with a subset of these included in the higher-precision Tier 2 survey expected to be necessary for atmospheric characterization. Tier 3 will be repeated observations of a small number of benchmark planets. Though previous studies have assessed the ability of Ariel to uncover population-level trends, they have generally presupposed a given Tier. Here we interrogate this assumption and assess the information content of Ariel transmission spectra as a function of Tier for three benchmark planets: a hot-Saturn, warm-Neptune, and temperate sub-Neptune. We simulate a grid of Ariel transit spectra at different Tiers for each target and use retrievals to assess which chemical species are detectable. We find that for giant planets like a hot-Saturn or warm-Neptune, Tier 1-quality observations are sufficient for <1.5dex constraints on H2O and CO2, irrespective of the presence of clouds -- meaning important chemical insights are already obtainable in the Tier 1 survey. Moving to Tiers 2 and 3 result in an incremental increase in precision as well as other molecules becoming detectable in certain scenarios (e.g., H2S, CO). Tier 1 observations are also sufficient to constrain CH4 in a cloud-free, temperate sub-Neptune, whereas observations with at least Tier 2 precision are necessary if the atmosphere is cloudy. The number of transits necessary to reach this precision, however, may be prohibitive for the inclusion of temperate sub-Neptunes in even the Tier 1 survey.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper simulates a grid of Ariel transmission spectra for three benchmark planets (hot-Saturn, warm-Neptune, temperate sub-Neptune) across the mission's Tier 1-3 precision levels and performs atmospheric retrievals to quantify the detectability and abundance constraints on key molecules (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.). It concludes that Tier 1-quality data suffice for <1.5 dex constraints on H2O and CO2 in the giant-planet cases irrespective of clouds, with higher tiers yielding incremental gains and additional species (e.g., H2S, CO); for the temperate sub-Neptune, Tier 1 works for CH4 only if cloud-free, otherwise Tier 2 is required, though the necessary transit numbers may limit inclusion.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, the work is significant for Ariel mission planning: it shows that the low-precision Tier 1 survey can already deliver chemically meaningful constraints on giant planets, potentially allowing reallocation of higher-tier resources and refining target selection. The use of forward simulations followed by retrievals on synthetic data provides a direct, tier-by-tier comparison that is reproducible in principle and tests a falsifiable claim about information content versus precision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods and Results sections describing the forward model and retrieval framework] The central claim that Tier 1 observations deliver <1.5 dex constraints on H2O and CO2 'irrespective of the presence of clouds' (abstract) rests on retrievals that employ the same forward model used to generate the spectra. This self-consistent setup omits biases from model incompleteness (wavelength-dependent cloud scattering, unmodeled trace gases, 3D effects) that would broaden posteriors in real data, directly weakening the Tier-1 sufficiency conclusion for the hot-Saturn and warm-Neptune cases.
  2. [Methods] Full details on the noise model (including Tier-specific floors and precision targets), cloud parameterization, retrieval priors, and validation metrics are not provided. Without these, the reported precision values cannot be independently assessed or reproduced, leaving the quantitative thresholds (<1.5 dex, number of transits) on unexamined assumptions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract and main text would benefit from explicit comparison to prior Ariel tier studies cited in the introduction, to clarify what is new versus confirmatory.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should more clearly distinguish the three benchmark planets and the cloud-free versus cloudy cases to aid quick reading of the tier-dependent results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have prompted us to clarify key aspects of our analysis and improve the manuscript's transparency. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that Tier 1 observations deliver <1.5 dex constraints on H2O and CO2 'irrespective of the presence of clouds' (abstract) rests on retrievals that employ the same forward model used to generate the spectra. This self-consistent setup omits biases from model incompleteness (wavelength-dependent cloud scattering, unmodeled trace gases, 3D effects) that would broaden posteriors in real data, directly weakening the Tier-1 sufficiency conclusion for the hot-Saturn and warm-Neptune cases.

    Authors: We agree that the self-consistent forward-model/retrieval framework represents an idealized scenario and does not incorporate biases arising from model incompleteness, such as wavelength-dependent cloud scattering, missing trace gases, or 3D atmospheric effects. These omissions could indeed broaden the retrieved posteriors in real data. Our study is designed to isolate the information content as a function of spectral precision under controlled conditions, establishing a theoretical baseline for what Tier 1 data can deliver. To address the referee's concern, we have added a new paragraph in the Discussion section explicitly acknowledging this limitation, stating that the quoted constraints are best-case values, and noting that higher tiers may provide greater robustness against such systematics. The relative comparison across tiers remains a useful guide for mission planning. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Full details on the noise model (including Tier-specific floors and precision targets), cloud parameterization, retrieval priors, and validation metrics are not provided. Without these, the reported precision values cannot be independently assessed or reproduced, leaving the quantitative thresholds (<1.5 dex, number of transits) on unexamined assumptions.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. While the Methods section outlines the overall retrieval framework, it does not provide the granular parameters needed for full reproducibility. We have revised the manuscript by expanding the Methods section with a dedicated subsection and accompanying tables that specify: (i) the complete noise model, including Tier-specific noise floors and precision targets; (ii) the cloud parameterization, including the functional form, free parameters, and scattering properties; (iii) the full set of retrieval priors and their ranges; and (iv) the validation metrics, such as convergence criteria and goodness-of-fit diagnostics. These additions enable independent assessment and reproduction of the reported thresholds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results derive from independent forward simulations and retrievals on synthetic data

full rationale

The paper generates synthetic Ariel transmission spectra via forward modeling for three benchmark planets across Tiers 1-3, then performs retrievals to quantify chemical constraints (e.g., <1.5 dex on H2O/CO2 for giants irrespective of clouds). This chain relies on external noise models, opacity databases, and retrieval frameworks applied to simulated data; no step reduces a claimed prediction to a quantity defined by the authors' own prior fits, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. The derivation remains self-contained and falsifiable against real Ariel data or alternative models.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions about instrument performance and retrieval accuracy rather than new postulates.

free parameters (2)
  • Tier-specific noise floors and precision targets
    Defined by mission requirements and used as fixed inputs for the simulated spectra.
  • Number of transits per target
    Varied to reach stated precision levels.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Atmospheric retrieval codes recover true parameters from noise-free and noisy spectra without major systematic bias
    Invoked when interpreting the retrieval results as constraints on real atmospheres.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5628 in / 1202 out tokens · 47504 ms · 2026-05-10T16:51:46.514780+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    3 https://zenodo.org/records/19443323 10Radica et al. 4 3 2 log XH2O Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Cloud Free 1 mbar Cloud 0.5 1.0Precision [dex] 1 3 5 7 10 15 20 Number of Transits 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5MSE Figure 6.Same as Figure 3, but showing trends for H 2O in HAT-P-11 b. 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 log XCO Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Cloud Free 1 mbar Cloud 0.5 1.0Precision [dex] 1 3...

    work page arXiv

  2. [2]

    B., Mansfield, M., et al

    Ahrer, E.-M., Stevenson, K. B., Mansfield, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 653, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4 2023

  3. [3]

    E., Wakeford, H

    Alderson, L., Batalha, N. E., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad32c9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad32c9 2024

  4. [4]

    2026, AJ, 171, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4494

    Ashtari, R., Collins, S., Splinter, J., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4494

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae4494 2026

  5. [5]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: ...

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  6. [6]

    Naumenko, O. V. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 4063, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1133

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1133 2016

  7. [7]

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 On the Ariel Tier System11 3 2 1 log XCH4 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Cloud Free 1 mbar Cloud 0.0 0.5 1.0Precision [dex] 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Number of Transits 0 1 2 3MSE Figure 8.Same as Figure 7, but showing trends for CH 4 in K...

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  8. [8]

    ” Rothman et al. (2010) Polyansky et al. (2018) “

    Barber, R. J., Strange, J. K., Hill, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2011

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2011 2014

  9. [9]

    K., Changeat, Q., Chubb, K

    Barstow, J. K., Changeat, Q., Chubb, K. L., et al. 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 447, doi: 10.1007/s10686-021-09821-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-021-09821-w 2022

  10. [10]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

    Benneke, B., & Seager, S. 2013, ApJ, 778, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/153 2013

  11. [11]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/187

    Benneke, B., Werner, M., Petigura, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/187

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/187 2017

  12. [12]

    2016, Stat Comput, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y

    Buchner, J. 2016, Stat Comput, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y 2016

  13. [13]

    Winn, J. N. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 689, 499–512, doi: 10.1086/592321

    work page doi:10.1086/592321 2008

  14. [14]

    V., et al

    Changeat, Q., Al-Refaie, A., Mugnai, L. V., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9a53 12Radica et al. T able 3.Retrieval Priors Parameter Prior Range log VMR U[−12,−1] log Pcloud [bar] U[−6, 3] αRay U[0, 10] γRay U[−5, 5] ×Rp U[0.75×Rp, 1.25×Rp] Tiso [K] U[100, 2000] Note—Udenotes a uniform prior on the specified range. VMR prior ranges for ...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab9a53 2020

  15. [15]

    2025, On the synergetic use of Ariel and JWST for exoplanet atmospheric science, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.02657

    Changeat, Q., Lagage, P.-O., Tinetti, G., et al. 2025, On the synergetic use of Ariel and JWST for exoplanet atmospheric science, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.02657

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02657 2025

  16. [16]

    M., Kreidberg, L., et al

    Charnay, B., Mendon¸ ca, J. M., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 417, doi: 10.1007/s10686-021-09715-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-021-09715-x 2022

  17. [17]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ade3c2 2025

  18. [18]

    and Rocchetto, Marco and Yurchenko, Sergei N

    Chubb, K. L., Rocchetto, M., Yurchenko, S. N., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038350

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038350 2021

  19. [19]

    B., Fisher, C

    Claringbold, A. B., Fisher, C. E., Kirk, J., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag143

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag143 2026

  20. [20]

    2017, A&A, 608, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731558

    Cloutier, R., Astudillo-Defru, N., Doyon, R., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731558

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731558 2017

  21. [21]

    A., Yurchenko, S

    Coles, P. A., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4638, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2778

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2778 2019

  22. [22]

    2023, ApJL, 943, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaead

    Constantinou, S., Madhusudhan, N., & Gandhi, S. 2023, ApJL, 943, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaead

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acaead 2023

  23. [23]

    B., & Coull-Neveu, B

    Cowan, N. B., & Coull-Neveu, B. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, doi: 10.33232/001c.146656

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.146656 2025

  24. [24]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Ciardi, D. R., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2016, ApJS, 226, 7, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/7 D’Aoust, L., Coull-Neveu, B., Lee, E. J., & Cowan, N. B. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 995, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae10ac

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/7 2016

  25. [25]

    J., Yip, K

    Davey, J. J., Yip, K. H., Al-Refaie, A. F., & Waldmann, I. P. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536, 2618, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2731

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2731 2024

  26. [26]

    2019, AJ, 157, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1cb9

    Edwards, B., Mugnai, L., Tinetti, G., Pascale, E., & Sarkar, S. 2019, AJ, 157, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1cb9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab1cb9 2019

  27. [27]

    2022, AJ, 164, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6bf9

    Edwards, B., & Tinetti, G. 2022, AJ, 164, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6bf9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac6bf9 2022

  28. [28]

    Faedi, F., Barros, S. C. C., Anderson, D. R., et al. 2011, A&A, 531, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116671

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116671 2011

  29. [29]

    D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al

    Feinstein, A. D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 670, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05674-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05674-1 2023

  30. [30]

    F., Capozziello, S., & Dainotti, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x 2009

  31. [31]

    Fortney, J. J. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 649, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09587.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09587.x 2005

  32. [32]

    P., Line, M

    Greene, T. P., Line, M. R., Montero, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 17, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/17

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/1/17 2016

  33. [33]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  34. [34]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  35. [35]

    2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 2013

  36. [36]

    B., et al

    Kirk, J., Ahrer, E.-M., Claringbold, A. B., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 3027, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf208

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf208 2025

  37. [37]

    E., Rothman, L

    Li, G., Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., et al. 2015, ApJS, 216, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/15

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/15 2015

  38. [38]

    R., Zhang, X., Vasisht, G., et al

    Line, M. R., Zhang, X., Vasisht, G., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 749, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/93

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/93 2012

  39. [39]

    MacDonald, R. J. 2023, JOSS, 8, 4873, doi: 10.21105/joss.04873

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.04873 2023

  40. [40]

    2017 , pages =

    MacDonald, R. J., & Madhusudhan, N. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 1979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx804

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx804 2017

  41. [41]

    2012, ApJ, 758, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/36

    Madhusudhan, N. 2012, ApJ, 758, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/36

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/1/36 2012

  42. [42]

    2023b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

    Madhusudhan, N., Sarkar, S., Constantinou, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf577

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf577 2023

  43. [43]

    S., Eastman, J

    Mahajan, A. S., Eastman, J. D., & Kirk, J. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 963, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad29f3 On the Ariel Tier System13

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad29f3 2024

  44. [44]

    2018, A&A, 613, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732234

    Mancini, L., Esposito, M., Covino, E., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732234

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732234 2018

  45. [45]

    B., Ahrer, E.-M., et al

    Meech, A., Claringbold, A. B., Ahrer, E.-M., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 539, 1381, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf530

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf530 2025

  46. [46]

    , keywords =

    Moses, J. I., Visscher, C., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/15

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/15 2011

  47. [47]

    I., Line, M

    Moses, J. I., Line, M. R., Visscher, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/34

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/34 2013

  48. [48]

    V., Al-Refaie, A., Bocchieri, A., et al

    Mugnai, L. V., Al-Refaie, A., Bocchieri, A., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 288, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2e92

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2e92 2021

  49. [49]

    V., Pascale, E., Edwards, B., Papageorgiou, A., & Sarkar, S

    Mugnai, L. V., Pascale, E., Edwards, B., Papageorgiou, A., & Sarkar, S. 2020, Experimental Astronomy, 50, 303–328, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09676-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-020-09676-7 2020

  50. [50]

    Cowan, N. B. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.21020, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.21020 P´ erez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21020 2026

  51. [51]

    V., Madhusudhan, N., & Apai, D

    Pinhas, A., Rackham, B. V., Madhusudhan, N., & Apai, D. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 5314, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2209

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2209 2018

  52. [52]

    L., Kyuberis, A

    Polyansky, O. L., Kyuberis, A. A., Zobov, N. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1877

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1877 2018

  53. [53]

    D., Lee, E

    Powell, D., Feinstein, A. D., Lee, E. K. H., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 979, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07040-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07040-9 2024

  54. [54]

    2022b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 5050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3024

    Radica, M., Artigau, E., Lafreni´ ere, D., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 5050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3024

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3024 2022

  55. [55]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1762

    Radica, M., Welbanks, L., Espinoza, N., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1762

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1762 2023

  56. [56]

    2024, ApJL, 962, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad20e4

    Radica, M., Coulombe, L.-P., Taylor, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 962, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad20e4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad20e4 2024

  57. [57]

    Super-Solar Metallicity and Tentative Evidence for Photochemistry on WASP-96b from JWST and Ground-Based VLT Transmission Spectroscopy

    Radica, M., Taylor, J., Rotman, Y., et al. 2026, Super-Solar Metallicity and Tentative Evidence for Photochemistry on WASP-96b from JWST and Ground-Based VLT Transmission Spectroscopy, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.05049

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.05049 2026

  58. [58]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Rotman, Y., Welbanks, L., Line, M. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adef04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adef04 2025

  59. [59]

    , year = 2015, month = may, volume =

    Ryabchikova, T., Piskunov, N., Kurucz, R. L., et al. 2015, PhyS, 90, 054005, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/90/5/054005

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-8949/90/5/054005 2015

  60. [60]

    G., Collins, K

    Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., & Gaudi, B. S. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3 2017

  61. [61]

    Stock, D

    Stock, J. W., Kitzmann, D., Patzer, A. B. C., & Sedlmayr, E. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1531

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1531 2018

  62. [62]

    P., Sing, D

    Thorngren, D. P., Sing, D. K., & Mukherjee, S. 2026, ApJS, 283, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae0e71

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae0e71 2026

  63. [63]

    European Planetary Science Congress , year = 2022, month = sep, eid =

    Tinetti, G., Eccleston, P., Lueftinger, T., et al. 2022, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2022–1114, doi: 10.5194/epsc2022-1114

    work page doi:10.5194/epsc2022-1114 2022

  64. [64]

    2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135, doi: 10.1007/s10686-018-9598-x

    Tinetti, G., Drossart, P., Eccleston, P., et al. 2018, Exp Astron, 46, 135, doi: 10.1007/s10686-018-9598-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-018-9598-x 2018

  65. [65]

    Tsai, S.-M., Lee, E. K. H., Powell, D., et al. 2023, Nature, 617, 483, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05902-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05902-2 2023

  66. [66]

    S., Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S

    Underwood, D. S., Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3890, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw849

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw849 2016

  67. [67]

    R., Hammond, M., et al

    Valentine, D., Wakeford, H. R., Hammond, M., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 544, 3647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1721

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1721 2025

  68. [68]

    E., et al

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

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

  69. [69]

    2019, AJ, 157, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab14de

    Welbanks, L., & Madhusudhan, N. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab14de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab14de 2019

  70. [70]

    F., et al

    Welbanks, L., Madhusudhan, N., Allard, N. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5a89

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5a89 2019

  71. [71]

    ExoMol line lists – XXXIX

    Tennyson, J. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1874

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1874 2020

  72. [72]

    N., Owens, A., Kefala, K., & Tennyson, J

    Yurchenko, S. N., Owens, A., Kefala, K., & Tennyson, J. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae148

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae148 2024

  73. [73]

    T., Swain, M

    Zellem, R. T., Swain, M. R., Cowan, N. B., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 094401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab2d54

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab2d54 2019

  74. [74]

    2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 67, doi: 10.1007/s10686-018-9572-7

    Zingales, T., Tinetti, G., Pillitteri, I., et al. 2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 67, doi: 10.1007/s10686-018-9572-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-018-9572-7 2018