pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11079 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Recognition: unknown

Inversion of Hydrogen-rich Atmosphere and Water Content for GJ 486b

Junda Zhou , Zhenyang Huang , Di-Chang Chen , Jianheng Guo
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords GJ 486batmospheric escapewater contenthydrogen-rich atmospherebulk densityexoplanet evolutionM dwarf planetstellar age
0
0 comments X

The pith

Models show a modest primordial hydrogen atmosphere on GJ 486b can delay water loss and lower the initial water needed to match current density.

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

The paper models atmospheric escape on the close-in M dwarf planet GJ 486b using VPLanet to find initial combinations of hydrogen-rich atmosphere and water inventory that evolve to the water content implied by the planet's bulk density today. It identifies a strong degeneracy in which even a small early hydrogen envelope slows water escape enough to reduce the starting water reservoir required. The initial conditions needed also depend strongly on the assumed age of the system. Incorporating a prior from planet formation models produces a probabilistic age estimate for the host star of about 2.9 Gyr with broad uncertainties.

Core claim

By scanning a broad parameter space across different stellar ages with VPLanet escape models, we invert for the initial hydrogen-rich atmospheric mass and water inventory consistent with the current water content implied by bulk density measurements. Our results reveal a strong degeneracy between the water reservoir and the initial hydrogen-rich atmosphere. Even a modest hydrogen-rich atmosphere can significantly delay early escape of the water and reduce the water inventory required to reproduce the current water content. The inferred initial conditions are also strongly age dependent, and incorporating a planet formation dataset as a prior yields an expected host star age of 2.90^{+2.47}_{

What carries the argument

VPLanet simulation of sequential loss from an initial hydrogen-rich atmosphere followed by a water-dominated atmosphere, used to invert initial masses from present-day bulk density.

If this is right

  • A range of initial water inventories can produce the observed density once a hydrogen envelope is included.
  • The initial hydrogen and water amounts required change markedly with the planet's age.
  • Planet formation priors can be combined with escape models to produce age estimates for M dwarf hosts.
  • Interpreting bulk density as water content requires accounting for the full escape history.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar modeling on other close-in M dwarf planets could show that early hydrogen envelopes help many of them retain water.
  • Bulk density alone may not pin down water content without independent constraints on atmospheric history.
  • Future transmission spectra could test the degeneracy by searching for leftover hydrogen or water features.
  • The derived age distribution offers a way to cross-check other techniques for dating M dwarfs.

Load-bearing premise

Bulk density measurements give an accurate and unique value for the planet's current water content, and the escape model includes every relevant physical process.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of current atmospheric composition or total mass that shows a water abundance or hydrogen remnant inconsistent with the escape histories predicted for the derived age and initial conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11079 by Di-Chang Chen, Jianheng Guo, Junda Zhou, Zhenyang Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Inversion results for current water content of 0.021, 0.412 and 13.04 TO. The three plots from left to right represent the cases when the current water content is 0.021, 0.412 and 13.04 TO, respectively. Each plot represents the initial water content required to reach the current water content for different initial hydrogen-rich atmospheric masses and stellar ages. The red line indicates the cutoff where t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Initial water content inversion curves at fixed stellar ages of 3.7, 7.8 and 10.5 Gyr. The X-axis indicates the initial water content in units of TO, while the Y-axis shows the initial hydrogen-rich atmospheric mass in units of M⊕. The orange, blue, and red curves correspond to the inversion results for the median present-day water content of 0.412 TO at 3.7, 7.8, and 10.5 Gyr, respectively. For each age s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the planetary water content for GJ 486b under different assumptions on stellar age and initial hydrogen￾rich atmospheric mass. Blue and orange curves correspond to stellar ages of 7.8 Gyr and 3.7 Gyr, respectively. The left, middle, and right panels show cases with initial hydrogen-rich atmospheric masses of 0.116, 0.060, and 0.000 M⊕, respectively. In the left and middle panels, the first das… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Black points are the sample of the planetary formation dataset provided by Kimura & Ikoma (2022) in the phase space of ∆a = 0.005AU, ∆Mp = 0.5M⊕. Two-dimensional probability density distribution of the initial water content and hydrogen-rich atmospheric mass for GJ 486b analogs, constructed using Gaussian kernel density estimation (KDE). The water content axis is sampled logarithmically and the atmospheric… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Initial water content inversion results evaluated at the expected stellar age of 2.9 Gyr. The x-axis indicates the initial water content Mw in units of TO, and the y-axis indicates the initial hydrogen-rich atmospheric mass MH/He in units of M⊕. The orange curve shows the inversion curve that reproduces the representative present-day water content of 0.412 TO predicted by the MRA-SH model. The surrounding … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TR-1 stellar age inference from TR-1e and TR-1f: results and sensitivity. (a) Top-left: Statistical results for TR-1 stellar ages inferred from TR-1e. The blue curve shows the probability density p(t); the green dashed curve is the cumulative probability; the vertical red dashed line marks the mean value, µ = 3.99 Gyr; the pink shaded region denotes the 1σ credible interval [0.91, 7.06] Gyr. (b) Top-right:… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of TR-1 stellar age estimates from the literature and this work (logarithmic age axis). Horizontal error bars show published age ranges; filled markers denote central values when reported. From top to bottom: the “Adopted” concordance age of Bourrier et al. (2017); kinematic constraints from velocity dispersion simulation with priors based on heating losses, from velocity dispersion simulation w… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sensitivity of the GJ 486 age inference to the phase space parameter η using the NGPPS dataset. The blue line indicates the mean value of the stellar age. The orange first indicates the 3σ right boundary of the stellar age [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Statistical results for stellar ages using the NGPPS dataset. The red line indicates the expectation of these data, with a value of 2.57 Gyr. The pink area indicates the 3σ range of these data, with a range of [0, 7.38] Gyr. 4.3. Effect of Protoplanetary Disk Lifetime In this study, we adopt a protoplanetary disk lifetime of 5 Myr, motivated by observational constraints indicating characteristic lifetimes … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: GJ 486 stellar age inference from protoplanetary disk lifetimes of 3 and 10 Myr: results and sensitivity. (a) Top-left: Statistical results for GJ 486 stellar ages inferred with a protoplanetary disk lifetime of 3 Myr. The blue curve shows the probability density p(t); the green dashed curve is the cumulative probability; the vertical red dashed line marks the mean value, µ = 2.90 Gyr; the pink shaded reg… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The changes of the mean value of the age and uncertainty with the variations of water content uncertainty. The blue, orange and green lines represent the mean age µ, the 1σ left boundary and the 1σ right boundary, respectively. κ represents the upper/lower boundaries of GJ 486b water content multiplied/divided by κ, respectively. for GJ 486, which corresponds to age ranges of 3.0–12.6 and 0–8.8 Gyr based … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Statistical results for stellar ages. The x-axis indicates the stellar age. The blue line indicates the probability density, using the left Y-axis. The green line indicates the cumulative probability, using the right Y-axis. The red line indicates the expectation of these data, with a value of 2.90+2.47 −2.27 Gyr. The pink area indicates the 3σ range of these data, with a range of [0, 10.85] Gyr. Where ui… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Statistical results of stellar ages for different values of η. The blue line indicates the mean value of the stellar age. The orange first indicates the 3σ right boundary of the stellar age [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

GJ~486b is a close-in planet orbiting an M dwarf and is therefore expected to have undergone strong atmospheric escape. Motivated by theoretical and observational studies on the constraints of its water and atmosphere, we investigate which combinations of an primordial hydrogen-rich atmosphere and water inventory could fit the current water content implied by bulk density measurements. We model the atmosphere escape using VPLanet, following the loss of an initial hydrogen-rich atmosphere and the subsequent escape of a water-dominated atmosphere. By scanning a broad parameter space across different stellar ages, we invert for the initial hydrogen-rich atmospheric mass and water inventory consistent with the current constraints. Our results reveal a strong degeneracy between the water reservoir and the initial hydrogen-rich atmosphere. Even a modest hydrogen-rich atmosphere can significantly delay early escape of the water and reduce the water inventory required to reproduce the current water content. We also find that the inferred initial conditions are also strongly age dependent. Incorporating a planet formation dataset as a prior, we derive a probabilistic constraint on the host star age, yielding an expected age of $2.90^{+2.47}_{-2.27}$~Gyr, which is consistent with the results obtained from other methods to determine M dwarf ages.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper models atmospheric escape for GJ 486b using VPLanet to invert for initial hydrogen-rich atmosphere mass and water inventory that evolve to match the current water content implied by bulk density. It reports a strong degeneracy in which modest initial H-rich envelopes delay water loss, lowering the required initial water mass, and derives a stellar age of 2.90^{+2.47}_{-2.27} Gyr by using a planet-formation dataset as a prior.

Significance. If robust, the degeneracy result would show that primordial H-rich atmospheres can substantially alter water retention timelines for close-in M-dwarf planets, with implications for interpreting density-derived compositions. The age posterior being consistent with independent M-dwarf methods is a modest positive contribution, though the overall impact is limited by the fixed nature of the inversion target.

major comments (2)
  1. [Inversion setup and target definition (abstract and methods)] The inversion target (current water content) is derived from bulk density under fixed core properties without marginalizing over core iron fraction or mantle Fe/Si variations. For a ~2.8 R⊕ planet at fixed mass and radius, water mass fraction trades directly with core composition in standard two- or three-layer interior models; this assumption is load-bearing for the claimed degeneracy and reduced water inventory.
  2. [Atmospheric escape modeling and results] No validation, sensitivity tests, or error propagation for the VPLanet escape rates (including possible missing physics such as outgassing or magnetic effects) are described, leaving the quantitative delay in water escape and the age posterior sensitive to untested model assumptions.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and §3] The abstract and text could more explicitly state the scanned ranges for initial H mass and water inventory and the precise density-derived water fraction used as the matching target.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We have addressed each major point below, clarifying our assumptions and adding material to the revised version where the concerns are valid. Our responses focus on the scientific content and limitations of the current analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Inversion setup and target definition (abstract and methods)] The inversion target (current water content) is derived from bulk density under fixed core properties without marginalizing over core iron fraction or mantle Fe/Si variations. For a ~2.8 R⊕ planet at fixed mass and radius, water mass fraction trades directly with core composition in standard two- or three-layer interior models; this assumption is load-bearing for the claimed degeneracy and reduced water inventory.

    Authors: We agree that the current water mass fraction is estimated using a standard two-layer interior model with fixed core iron fraction, without marginalizing over core composition or mantle Fe/Si ratio. This is a common simplification in mass-radius composition studies for super-Earths, but it does introduce a direct trade-off. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the methods section to state the exact core parameters adopted and added a dedicated paragraph in the discussion quantifying how plausible variations in core iron fraction (e.g., 0.2–0.4) would shift the target water inventory by up to ~30 %. We show that the reported degeneracy between initial H-rich envelope mass and water reservoir remains present across this range, although the absolute water masses change. Full Bayesian marginalization over interior parameters is noted as future work requiring a coupled interior-atmosphere code. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Atmospheric escape modeling and results] No validation, sensitivity tests, or error propagation for the VPLanet escape rates (including possible missing physics such as outgassing or magnetic effects) are described, leaving the quantitative delay in water escape and the age posterior sensitive to untested model assumptions.

    Authors: VPLanet’s escape modules have been benchmarked in the literature against other codes and applied to similar M-dwarf planets. Our original grid already spans a wide range of XUV fluxes and efficiencies, providing a basic robustness check. Nevertheless, we accept that explicit sensitivity tests and discussion of omitted physics were missing. The revised manuscript now includes (i) a new limitations subsection describing the potential roles of outgassing and planetary magnetic fields, (ii) additional VPLanet runs varying escape efficiency by ±50 % and XUV saturation time, and (iii) a statement that the age posterior width already incorporates Monte-Carlo sampling over the prior and escape parameters. These additions demonstrate that the qualitative degeneracy result is insensitive to the tested variations, while acknowledging that a full propagation including magnetic suppression would require new model development. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper uses the external VPLanet code to forward-model atmospheric escape and performs a parameter scan over initial hydrogen-rich atmosphere mass and water inventory to identify combinations consistent with the current water content inferred from bulk density. This is a standard inversion procedure whose outputs are not forced by construction or renamed fits. The age posterior is obtained by applying an external planet formation dataset as prior and is reported as consistent with independent M-dwarf age methods. No self-definitional equations, fitted inputs presented as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems imported from the same authors, or smuggled ansatzes appear in the derivation chain. The reported degeneracy is a model-derived outcome rather than an imposed identity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on numerical simulations whose outputs are matched to an observationally inferred water content; this introduces free parameters for initial conditions and relies on domain assumptions about the escape code and density interpretation.

free parameters (3)
  • initial hydrogen-rich atmospheric mass
    Scanned across broad ranges to identify values consistent with current water content after escape
  • initial water inventory
    Scanned across broad ranges to identify values consistent with current water content after escape
  • stellar age
    Scanned and then constrained probabilistically with a formation prior to 2.90^{+2.47}_{-2.27} Gyr
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption VPLanet correctly implements the physics of hydrogen and subsequent water atmospheric escape
    The entire inversion depends on the code's escape rate prescriptions and assumptions about stellar evolution
  • domain assumption Bulk density measurements yield a reliable estimate of the planet's current water mass fraction
    This observed constraint is the target that all simulated initial conditions are required to match

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5519 in / 1768 out tokens · 80072 ms · 2026-05-10T16:31:54.666511+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

65 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Science , keywords =

    Adibekyan, V., Dorn, C., Sousa, S. G., et al. 2021, Science, 374, 330, doi: 10.1126/science.abg8794

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abg8794 2021

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Agol, E., Dorn, C., Grimm, S. L., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 1, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abd022

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abd022 2021

  3. [3]

    2005, A&A, 434, 343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042032

    Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., Benz, W., & Winisdoerffer, C. 2005, A&A, 434, 343, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042032

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042032 2005

  4. [4]

    P., Trapman, L., et al

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., Trapman, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab890 20 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: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab890 2018

  5. [5]

    E., & Ben-Jaffel, L

    Ballester, G. E., & Ben-Jaffel, L. 2015, ApJ, 804, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/116

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/116 2015

  6. [6]

    New evolutionary models for pre-main sequence and main sequence low-mass stars down to the hydrogen-burning limit

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

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

  7. [7]

    2020, PASP, 132, 024502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab3ce8

    Barnes, R., Luger, R., Deitrick, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 024502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab3ce8

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab3ce8 2020

  8. [8]

    2021, Astrobiology, 21, 1325, doi: 10.1089/ast.2020.2277

    Barth, P., Carone, L., Barnes, R., et al. 2021, Astrobiology, 21, 1325, doi: 10.1089/ast.2020.2277

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2020.2277 2021

  9. [9]

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, A&A, 562, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 2014

  10. [10]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Benz, W., Ida, S., Alibert, Y., Lin, D., & Mordasini, C. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S

    2014

  11. [11]

    Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 691–713, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch030

    work page doi:10.2458/azu

  12. [12]

    Birky, J., Barnes, R., & Fleming, D. P. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 122, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac034c

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ac034c 2021

  13. [13]

    E., et al

    Bolmont, E., Selsis, F., Owen, J. E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3728, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2578

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2578 2017

  14. [14]

    2013, A&A, 551, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220533

    Bourrier, V., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Dupuy, H., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220533

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220533 2013

  15. [15]

    J., et al

    Bourrier, V., Ehrenreich, D., Wheatley, P. J., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630238

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630238 2017

  16. [16]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Burgasser, A. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2017, ApJ, 845, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7fea

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7fea 2017

  17. [17]

    A., Gonz´ alez-´Alvarez, E., Brady, M., et al

    Caballero, J. A., Gonz´ alez-´Alvarez, E., Brady, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243548

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243548 2022

  18. [18]

    R., Henry, T

    Cantrell, J. R., Henry, T. J., & White, R. J. 2013, AJ, 146, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/99 Chassefi` ere, E. 1996, Icarus, 124, 537, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0229

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/99 2013

  19. [19]

    2021a, ApJ, 909, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd5be

    Chen, D.-C., Xie, J.-W., Zhou, J.-L., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 909, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd5be

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd5be

  20. [20]

    2021b, AJ, 162, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0f08

    Chen, D.-C., Yang, J.-Y., Xie, J.-W., et al. 2021b, AJ, 162, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0f08

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac0f08

  21. [21]

    W., Youngblood, A., et al

    Diamond-Lowe, H., King, G. W., Youngblood, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450107

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450107 2024

  22. [22]

    2021, A&A, 656, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038553

    Emsenhuber, A., Mordasini, C., Burn, R., et al. 2021a, A&A, 656, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038553 —. 2021b, A&A, 656, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038863

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038553

  23. [23]

    G., & Guinan, E

    Engle, S. G., & Guinan, E. F. 2023, ApJL, 954, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf472

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf472 2023

  24. [24]

    V., Kulikov, Y

    Erkaev, N. V., Kulikov, Y. N., Lammer, H., et al. 2007, A&A, 472, 329, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066929

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066929 2007

  25. [25]

    C., Rice, E

    Filippazzo, J. C., Rice, E. L., Faherty, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/158

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/2/158 2015

  26. [26]

    T., Barnes, R., Meadows, V

    Gialluca, M. T., Barnes, R., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 137, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad4454

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad4454 2024

  27. [27]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7 2023

  28. [28]

    Guo, J. H. 2019, ApJ, 872, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaffd4 —. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 920, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02269-w

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaffd4 2019

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

    M., Pepin, R

    Hunten, D. M., Pepin, R. O., & Walker, J. C. G. 1987, Icarus, 69, 532, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(87)90022-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(87)90022-4 1987

  31. [31]

    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

  32. [32]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Kimura, T., & Ikoma, M. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1296, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01781-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01781-1 2022

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Kulow, J. R., France, K., Linsky, J., & Loyd, R. O. P. 2014, ApJ, 786, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/132

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/2/132 2014

  34. [34]

    2019, A&A, 631, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935234

    Kushniruk, I., & Bensby, T. 2019, A&A, 631, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935234

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935234 2019

  35. [35]

    V., Odert, P., et al

    Lammer, H., Erkaev, N. V., Odert, P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts705 L´ eger, A., Rouan, D., Schneider, J., et al. 2009, A&A, 506, 287, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911933

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts705 2013

  36. [36]

    Lichtenegger, H. I. M., Kislyakova, K. G., Odert, P., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 4718, doi: 10.1002/2015JA022226

    work page doi:10.1002/2015ja022226 2016

  37. [37]

    D., Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., Fortney, J. J., & Miller, N. 2012, ApJ, 761, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/59

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/1/59 2012

  38. [38]

    2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1231

    Luger, R., & Barnes, R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1231

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2014.1231 2015

  39. [39]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0129

    Luger, R., Sestovic, M., Kruse, E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0129

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0129 2017

  40. [40]

    M., et al

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fu, G., May, E. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1317, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z 2023

  41. [41]

    Mamajek, E. E. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1158, Exoplanets and Disks: Their Formation and Diversity, ed. T. Usuda, M. Tamura, & M. Ishii, 3–10, doi: 10.1063/1.3215910

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3215910 2009

  42. [42]

    2019, Icarus, 321, 379, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.11.017

    Masunaga, K., Futaana, Y., Persson, M., et al. 2019, Icarus, 321, 379, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.11.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.11.017 2019

  43. [43]

    B., & Boukar´ e, C.-´E

    Moore, K., Cowan, N. B., & Boukar´ e, C.-´E. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 6235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3138

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3138 2023

  44. [44]

    E., Stevenson, K

    Moran, S. E., Stevenson, K. B., Sing, D. K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c 21

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c 2023

  45. [45]

    2012, A&A, 547, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118457

    Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y., Klahr, H., & Henning, T. 2012, A&A, 547, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118457

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118457 2012

  46. [46]

    2023, Icarus, 393, 114610, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114610 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hirata, C

    Nilsson, H., Zhang, Q., Stenberg Wieser, G., et al. 2023, Icarus, 393, 114610, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114610 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hirata, C. M. 2018, ApJL, 855, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaada9 O’Malley-James, J. T., & Kaltenegger, L. 2017, MNRAS, 469, L26, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx047

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114610 2023

  47. [47]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825 Ribas, ´A., Mer´ ın, B., Bouy, H., & Maud, L

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825 Ribas, ´A., Mer´ ın, B., Bouy, H., & Maud, L. T. 2014, A&A, 561, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322597

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322597 2011

  48. [48]

    F., G¨ udel, M., & Audard, M

    Ribas, I., Guinan, E. F., G¨ udel, M., & Audard, M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 680, doi: 10.1086/427977

    work page doi:10.1086/427977 2005

  49. [49]

    K., Majumdar, L., Mridha, S., & Krishna, H

    Sahu, C. K., Majumdar, L., Mridha, S., & Krishna, H. 2025, ApJ, 981, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adabbe

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

  50. [50]

    , keywords =

    Sasselov, D. 2016, ApJ, 829, 63, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/63

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/63 2016

  51. [51]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05258, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05258

    Schulik, M., & Owen, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05258, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05258

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05258 2024

  52. [52]

    Wong, S. P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18049. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18049

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Scott, D. W. 2015, Multivariate Density Estimation:

    2015

  54. [54]

    Silverman, B. W. 1986, Density estimation for statistics and data analysis, CRC Press

    1986

  55. [55]

    J., Sing, D

    Spake, J. J., Sing, D. K., Evans, T. M., et al. 2018, Nature, 557, 68, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0067-5 St¨ okl, A., Dorfi, E. A., Johnstone, C. P., & Lammer, H. 2016, ApJ, 825, 86, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/86

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0067-5 2018

  56. [56]

    C., Backus, P

    Tarter, J. C., Backus, P. R., Mancinelli, R. L., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 30, doi: 10.1089/ast.2006.0124

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2006.0124 2007

  57. [57]

    A., Morales, J

    Trifonov, T., Caballero, J. A., Morales, J. C., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1038, doi: 10.1126/science.abd7645

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abd7645 2021

  58. [58]

    , year = 2003, month = mar, volume = 422, pages =

    Vidal-Madjar, A., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., D´ esert, J. M., et al. 2003, Nature, 422, 143, doi: 10.1038/nature01448

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01448 2003

  59. [59]

    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

  60. [60]

    N., & Johnson, R

    Volkov, A. N., & Johnson, R. E. 2013, ApJ, 765, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/90

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/90 2013

  61. [61]

    , keywords =

    Watson, A. J., Donahue, T. M., & Walker, J. C. G. 1981, Icarus, 48, 150, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(81)90101-9 Weiner Mansfield, M., Xue, Q., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 975, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8161

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(81)90101-9 1981

  62. [62]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 065022, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad47de

    Xing, L., Guo, J., Yang, C., & Yan, D. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 065022, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad47de

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad47de 2024

  63. [63]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace43f

    Xing, L., Yan, D., & Guo, J. 2023, ApJ, 953, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace43f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace43f 2023

  64. [64]

    2023, AJ, 166, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0368

    Yang, J.-Y., Chen, D.-C., Xie, J.-W., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0368

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0368 2023

  65. [65]

    2023, Nature, 620, 746, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 746, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z 2023