pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.14026 · v1 · pith:LNA6TMI6new · submitted 2026-06-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM

Next-Generation Atmosphere Models for Giant Planets with Application to Coupled Interior Composition and Spectral Evolution I: Cloudless Models with Equilibrium Chemistry

Yi-Xian Chen , Roberto Tejada Arevalo , Adam Burrows , Ankan Sur This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 05:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords giant planet atmosphereshelium rainevolutionary tracksequilibrium chemistryatmosphere-interior couplingspectral evolutioncloudless modelsradiative transfer
0
0 comments X

The pith

On-the-fly interpolation of atmospheric composition boundary conditions changes the timing of helium rain in giant planet evolution.

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

The paper develops updated atmosphere models for giant planets between 0.3 and 10 Jupiter masses using line-by-line opacities and a metal-inclusive equation of state that treats heavy elements consistently with the chosen metallicity. Tables are constructed at three metallicities and two helium fractions to allow for composition changes during evolution. The central result is that interpolating boundary conditions on the fly according to current atmospheric composition has a notable impact on late-stage evolution by shifting the onset of helium rain. This alters the subsequent cooling history and the degree of atmospheric helium depletion. A toolkit is supplied to interpolate spectra and boundary conditions efficiently across effective temperature, gravity, helium fraction, and metallicity.

Core claim

Cloudless atmosphere models computed with CoolTLusty supply entropy values at the convective base, temperature-pressure profiles, and emergent spectra for T_eff from 100 to 1400 K and log g from 2.8 to 4.4 at metallicities Z = 1, 3.16, 10 Z_sun and helium fractions Y = 0.15, 0.275. Adoption of a metal-inclusive EOS keeps heavy-element treatment consistent between opacity and equation of state. Direct comparison of evolutionary tracks demonstrates that on-the-fly interpolation of composition-dependent boundary conditions alters the timing of helium rain and therefore the cooling curve and atmospheric helium depletion.

What carries the argument

The 4D interpolation toolkit over the parameter space (T_eff, log10 g, Y, Z) that supplies time-dependent boundary conditions and spectra for coupling to interior evolution calculations.

If this is right

  • Tables accommodate both helium-fraction changes from rain and metallicity variations during envelope evolution.
  • Evolutionary tracks can be post-processed to yield fully time-resolved spectral sequences.
  • The consistent Y and Z treatment improves coupling between atmosphere and interior models.
  • The models span the full mass range 0.3-10 M_J with updated opacities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The revised cooling histories may shift inferred ages for directly imaged exoplanets when helium depletion is used as a clock.
  • Extending the interpolation framework to include disequilibrium chemistry would test how much the reported timing shift depends on the equilibrium assumption.
  • Coupling these boundary conditions to interior models that also track metal redistribution could reveal whether composition gradients amplify or damp the helium-rain effect.

Load-bearing premise

Equilibrium chemistry together with the chosen line-by-line opacities and metal-inclusive EOS accurately represent real cloudless giant planet atmospheres across the full temperature, gravity, and composition range.

What would settle it

Comparison of the predicted timing of helium rain and resulting atmospheric helium abundance against direct spectroscopic measurements of helium in a mature giant planet or brown dwarf.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.14026 by Adam Burrows, Ankan Sur, Roberto Tejada Arevalo, Yi-Xian Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Radiative–convective equilibrium temperature–pressure (TP) profiles from our atmosphere models compared with those at a representative surface gravity log10 g = 4.0 and Y = 0.275. The left panel shows solar-metallicity models compared with ATMO2020 (dotted) and Sonora-Bobcat (SB21; dashed) (Phillips et al. 2020; Marley et al. 2021), and the right panel shows enhanced-metallicity models compared with SB21. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of spectra from different atmospheric models. Upper left: Spectra from our models with log g = 4.0, Z = Z⊙, Y = 0.275, shown alongside spectra from the Sonora-Bobcat (SB21 Marley et al. 2021) and ATMO2020 (Phillips et al. 2020) grids at the same gravity and metallicity. Upper right: Our models’ dependence on varying log10 g = 3.0, 4.0. Lower left: Our models’ dependence on varying metallicity Z … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spectra over a range of effective temperatures presented as 3D surfaces for a typical (log10 g, Z, Y )-parameter combination. The rapid suppression of sub-micron flux at low effective temperatures is particularly pronounced and will be manifest in the time evolution of the spectrum (see §6). the atmospheric Y and Z values. Such forward modeling motivates us to prepare boundary-condition tables for S over t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: S(Teff , log10 g) surfaces at 3 different metallicities and for Y = 0.275 (left) and Y = 0.15 (right). The entropy change between Z = 1, 3.16Z⊙ (green and blue sheets, nearly overlapping) is relatively modest, while the 10Z⊙ table (red) has significantly lower relative entropy by about 0.7 kB baryon−1 . This implies that higher metallicity atmospheres accelerate cooling at early ages. A decrease in Y simil… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Adiabatic evolution of giant planets with different masses (different colors) with fixed and homogeneous compositions Z = Z⊙, Y = 0.275. Different atmosphere models are shown in different line styles. In terms of Teff , our evolution tracks are similar to those of SB21 and ATMO2020, while B97 is hotter at early times but cools more rapidly and becomes colder at late times (≳ a few ×108 yr). In terms of rad… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Non-adiabatic and compositionally inhomogeneous evolution of 1 MJ models initialized with fuzzy, stably stratified cores. Top left: effective temperature Teff (with linear-time insets highlighting small-scale features). Top right: radius evolution. Bottom left: atmospheric metallicity Zatm/Z⊙. Bottom right: atmospheric helium abundance Yatm. Dashed curves include helium rain when interior temperatures fall… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top panels: the evolutionary trajectory of the atmosphere parameters Y and Z in the model with convective mixing of a fuzzy core and helium rain in the Teff , g parameter space. Colored points mark discrete snapshots sampled along the evolution, with color indicating time (logarithmically scaled; see colorbar). Bottom panel: the corresponding interpolated spectral evolution obtained by post-processing the … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present updated atmosphere models designed for calculating the post-formation evolution and cooling of giant planets with masses between $0.3$ and $10$ $M_J$. Our tables provide the entropy in the convective region at the base of the atmosphere, temperature ($T$)pressure ($P$) profiles, and emergent spectra for atmospheres calculated using the radiative transfer code \texttt{CoolTLusty} for $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$s over the range 100 to 1400 Kelvin and log$_{10}$($g$) from 2.8 to 4.4 ($cgs$) with the latest opacities and equations of state. Each spectrum and thermal profile is calculated using line-by-line opacity sampling. We construct tables at 3 different metallicities ($Z = 1, 3.16, 10 Z_\odot$) and 2 different helium fractions ($Y=0.15, 0.275$), with the improvement that we adopt a metal-inclusive EOS that treats heavy elements consistently with the opacity metallicity (rather than folding it into an effective $Y$). The result is tables that accommodate both changes in $Y$ due to helium rain and potential variations in $Z$ during envelope evolution. We present a comparison between TP profiles, modeled spectra, and evolutionary tracks, and find that on-the-fly interpolation of boundary conditions in atmospheric composition has a notable impact on the late stages of giant planet evolution, altering the timing of helium rain and therefore the subsequent cooling history and atmospheric helium depletion. We also provide an available toolkit that generates spectra and boundary conditions via efficient interpolation across the 4D parameter space $(T_{\rm eff}, \log_{10} g, Y, Z)$, which is useful for post processing evolutionary tracks to produce fully time-resolved spectral evolutions.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents updated cloudless atmosphere models for giant planets (0.3-10 MJ) computed with CoolTLusty using line-by-line opacities and a metal-inclusive EOS. Tables supply convective entropy, TP profiles, and spectra over Teff = 100-1400 K and log g = 2.8-4.4 at three metallicities (Z = 1, 3.16, 10 Z⊙) and two helium fractions (Y = 0.15, 0.275). A 4D interpolation toolkit is provided, and the central claim is that on-the-fly interpolation of these composition-dependent boundary conditions produces a notable change in late-stage evolutionary tracks, specifically shifting the onset of helium rain and the subsequent cooling and atmospheric helium depletion.

Significance. If the reported evolutionary differences are shown to arise from physical changes in boundary conditions rather than numerical artifacts, the work supplies improved, publicly usable tables and interpolation tools that couple atmospheric composition variations (including helium rain) directly to interior evolution and time-resolved spectra. This addresses a recognized limitation in prior models that treated Y and Z as fixed or decoupled.

major comments (1)
  1. [description of the interpolation toolkit and evolutionary-track comparison] The central claim that on-the-fly 4D interpolation alters helium-rain timing rests on the assumption that differences between tracks are physical rather than interpolation artifacts. The manuscript constructs tables on a discrete (Teff, log g, Y, Z) grid (3 Z values, 2 Y values) and supplies an interpolation toolkit, but reports neither the interpolation scheme (linear, spline, etc.), grid density, nor quantitative error metrics such as hold-out tests on entropy or TP profiles. Without these, it is not demonstrated that interpolation error is smaller than the physical signal from composition change.
minor comments (2)
  1. [methods] The abstract states that spectra and thermal profiles are calculated with line-by-line opacity sampling; the methods section should explicitly state the wavelength grid and sampling strategy used for the line-by-line calculations.
  2. [abstract] Notation for effective temperature appears as T_{\mathrm{eff}}s in the abstract; consistent use of T_eff throughout would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address the major comment on the interpolation toolkit and validation of evolutionary differences below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that on-the-fly 4D interpolation alters helium-rain timing rests on the assumption that differences between tracks are physical rather than interpolation artifacts. The manuscript constructs tables on a discrete (Teff, log g, Y, Z) grid (3 Z values, 2 Y values) and supplies an interpolation toolkit, but reports neither the interpolation scheme (linear, spline, etc.), grid density, nor quantitative error metrics such as hold-out tests on entropy or TP profiles. Without these, it is not demonstrated that interpolation error is smaller than the physical signal from composition change.

    Authors: We agree that the interpolation scheme, grid details, and quantitative error metrics are not reported in the current manuscript and should be included to support the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection describing the interpolation method used by the toolkit, the grid spacing in each dimension, and results from hold-out validation tests on entropy and TP profiles. These additions will quantify the interpolation errors and show they are smaller than the composition-driven differences, confirming that the reported shifts in helium-rain timing are physical. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper computes TP profiles, spectra, and base entropies directly via the external CoolTLusty radiative-transfer code using line-by-line opacity sampling and a metal-inclusive EOS for discrete (Teff, logg, Y, Z) points. Tables are populated from these calculations at fixed metallicities and helium fractions; evolutionary tracks are then compared with versus without on-the-fly 4D interpolation of those tabulated boundary conditions. No equation reduces a claimed result to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction, no ansatz is smuggled via prior work, and the helium-rain timing shift is presented as an output of the comparison rather than an input. The chain therefore rests on independent radiative-transfer computations and external opacities/EOS rather than self-referential fitting or renaming.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; models rest on standard radiative transfer assumptions and chosen discrete grids for Z and Y rather than continuous derivation.

free parameters (2)
  • Metallicity values = 1, 3.16, 10 Z_sun
    Tables constructed at Z = 1, 3.16, 10 Z_sun; these discrete choices define the grid.
  • Helium fractions = 0.15, 0.275
    Tables at Y=0.15 and 0.275; chosen to bracket helium rain scenarios.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Plane-parallel radiative transfer with line-by-line opacity sampling
    Core of CoolTLusty calculations invoked for all TP profiles and spectra.
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium and equilibrium chemistry
    Stated as the chemistry treatment for composition and opacities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5882 in / 1454 out tokens · 25621 ms · 2026-06-27T05:17:04.319589+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

69 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., & Flasar , F

    Achterberg , R. K., & Flasar , F. M. 2020, , 1, 30, 10.3847/PSJ/ab9cb6

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ab9cb6 2020

  2. [2]

    S., & Marley , M

    Ackerman , A. S., & Marley , M. S. 2001, , 556, 872, 10.1086/321540

    work page doi:10.1086/321540 2001

  3. [3]

    2021, , 593, 517, 10.1038/s41586-021-03516-0

    Brygoo , S., Loubeyre , P., Millot , M., et al. 2021, , 593, 517, 10.1038/s41586-021-03516-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03516-0 2021

  4. [4]

    2008, , 678, 1436, 10.1086/533518

    Burrows , A., Budaj , J., & Hubeny , I. 2008, , 678, 1436, 10.1086/533518

    work page doi:10.1086/533518 2008

  5. [5]

    B., Lunine , J

    Burrows , A., Hubbard , W. B., Lunine , J. I., & Liebert , J. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 719, 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.719

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.73.719 2001

  6. [6]

    Burrows , A., & Sharp , C. M. 1999, , 512, 843, 10.1086/306811

    work page doi:10.1086/306811 1999

  7. [7]

    Burrows , A., Sudarsky , D., & Hubbard , W. B. 2003, , 594, 545, 10.1086/376897

    work page doi:10.1086/376897 2003

  8. [8]

    2006 a , , 650, 1140, 10.1086/507269

    Burrows , A., Sudarsky , D., & Hubeny , I. 2006 a , , 650, 1140, 10.1086/507269

    work page doi:10.1086/507269 2006

  9. [9]

    2006 b , , 640, 1063, 10.1086/500293

    ---. 2006 b , , 640, 1063, 10.1086/500293

    work page doi:10.1086/500293 2006

  10. [10]

    B., et al

    Burrows , A., Marley , M., Hubbard , W. B., et al. 1997, , 491, 856, 10.1086/305002

    work page doi:10.1086/305002 1997

  11. [11]

    2021, ApJ, 917, 6pp, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc48

    Chabrier, G., & Debras, F. 2021, ApJ, 917, 6pp, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc48

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfc48 2021

  12. [12]

    2019, , 872, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f

    Chabrier , G., Mazevet , S., & Soubiran , F. 2019, , 872, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f 2019

  13. [13]

    Chen , Y.-X., Burrows , A., Sur , A., & Arevalo , R. T. 2023, , 957, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf456

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf456 2023

  14. [14]

    Chinchilla , P., B \'e jar , V. J. S., Lodieu , N., et al. 2020, , 633, A152, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936130

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936130 2020

  15. [15]

    L., Rocchetto , M., Yurchenko , S

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

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

  16. [16]

    J., Liu , M

    Dupuy , T. J., Liu , M. C., Allers , K. N., et al. 2018, , 156, 57, 10.3847/1538-3881/aacbc2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aacbc2 2018

  17. [17]

    J., & Hubbard , W

    Fortney , J. J., & Hubbard , W. B. 2003, , 164, 228, 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00130-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0019-1035(03)00130-1 2003

  18. [18]

    2004, , 608, 1039, 10.1086/420765

    ---. 2004, , 608, 1039, 10.1086/420765

    work page doi:10.1086/420765 2004

  19. [19]

    J., Ikoma , M., Nettelmann , N., Guillot , T., & Marley , M

    Fortney , J. J., Ikoma , M., Nettelmann , N., Guillot , T., & Marley , M. S. 2011, , 729, 32, 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/32

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/1/32 2011

  20. [20]

    J., Marley , M

    Fortney , J. J., Marley , M. S., & Barnes , J. W. 2007, , 659, 1661, 10.1086/512120

    work page doi:10.1086/512120 2007

  21. [21]

    1981, , 86, 8713, 10.1029/JA086iA10p08713

    Gautier , D., Conrath , B., Flasar , M., et al. 1981, , 86, 8713, 10.1029/JA086iA10p08713

    work page doi:10.1029/ja086ia10p08713 1981

  22. [22]

    R., Line , M

    Gharib-Nezhad , E., Iyer , A. R., Line , M. R., et al. 2021, , 254, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/abf504

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abf504 2021

  23. [23]

    C., J., Pollack , J

    Graboske , H. C., J., Pollack , J. B., Grossman , A. S., & Olness , R. J. 1975, , 199, 265, 10.1086/153689

    work page doi:10.1086/153689 1975

  24. [24]

    2020, Astrophysics A & A, 643, 105, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038367

    Haldemann, J., Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., & Benz, W. 2020, Astrophysics A & A, 643, 105, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038367

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038367 2020

  25. [25]

    2023, , 672, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244851

    Howard , S., & Guillot , T. 2023, , 672, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244851

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244851 2023

  26. [26]

    2024, , 689, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450629

    Howard , S., M \"u ller , S., & Helled , R. 2024, , 689, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450629

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450629 2024

  27. [27]

    W., & Min , M

    Huang , H., Ormel , C. W., & Min , M. 2024, , 691, A291, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451112

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451112 2024

  28. [28]

    Hubbard , W. B. 1977, , 30, 305, 10.1016/0019-1035(77)90164-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(77)90164-6 1977

  29. [29]

    B., Guillot , T., Marley , M

    Hubbard , W. B., Guillot , T., Marley , M. S., et al. 1999, , 47, 1175, 10.1016/S0032-0633(99)00042-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0032-0633(99)00042-2 1999

  30. [30]

    2007, , 669, 1248, 10.1086/522107

    Hubeny , I., & Burrows , A. 2007, , 669, 1248, 10.1086/522107

    work page doi:10.1086/522107 2007

  31. [31]

    1995, , 439, 875, 10.1086/175226

    Hubeny , I., & Lanz , T. 1995, , 439, 875, 10.1086/175226

    work page doi:10.1086/175226 1995

  32. [32]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 211, 10.1038/s41550-024-02420-7

    Hyder , A., Li , C., Chanover , N., & Bjoraker , G. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 211, 10.1038/s41550-024-02420-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02420-7 2025

  33. [33]

    1994, , 111, 174, 10.1006/icar.1994.1139

    Karkoschka , E. 1994, , 111, 174, 10.1006/icar.1994.1139

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1994.1139 1994

  34. [34]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 10.1051/0004-6361/202556984

    Knierim, H., Batygin, K., Helled, R., Morf, L., & Adams, F. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 10.1051/0004-6361/202556984

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556984 2025

  35. [35]

    2024, ApJ, 227, 13

    Knierim, H., & Helled, R. 2024, ApJ, 227, 13. http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09341

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.16295, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.16295

    Lacy , B., & Burrows , A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.16295, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.16295

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.16295 2023

  37. [37]

    2010, Science, 329, 57, 10.1126/science.1187187

    Lagrange , A.-M., Bonnefoy , M., Chauvin , G., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 57, 10.1126/science.1187187

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1187187 2010

  38. [38]

    B., Scholz , A., Mu z i \'c , K., et al

    Langeveld , A. B., Scholz , A., Mu z i \'c , K., et al. 2024, , 168, 179, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6f0c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad6f0c 2024

  39. [39]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 609, 10.1038/s41550-020-1009-3

    Li , C., Ingersoll , A., Bolton , S., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 609, 10.1038/s41550-020-1009-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1009-3 2020

  40. [40]

    2009, Physical Review Letters, 102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.115701

    Lorenzen, W., Holst, B., & Redmer, R. 2009, Physical Review Letters, 102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.115701

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.115701 2009

  41. [41]

    2011, Physical Review B, 84, 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235109

    ---. 2011, Physical Review B, 84, 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235109

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.84.235109 2011

  42. [42]

    R., Barman , T., et al

    Macintosh , B., Graham , J. R., Barman , T., et al. 2015, Science, 350, 64, 10.1126/science.aac5891

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aac5891 2015

  43. [43]

    E., Morley, C

    Mang, J., Batalha, N. E., Morley, C. V., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 98

    2026

  44. [44]

    J., & Moore , K

    Mankovich , C., Fortney , J. J., & Moore , K. L. 2016, , 832, 113, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/113

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/2/113 2016

  45. [45]

    S., Saumon , D., & Goldblatt , C

    Marley , M. S., Saumon , D., & Goldblatt , C. 2010, , 723, L117, 10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L117

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/l117 2010

  46. [46]

    S., Saumon , D., Visscher , C., et al

    Marley , M. S., Saumon , D., Visscher , C., et al. 2021, , 920, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d 2021

  47. [47]

    2008, Science, 322, 1348, 10.1126/science.1166585

    Marois , C., Macintosh , B., Barman , T., et al. 2008, Science, 322, 1348, 10.1126/science.1166585

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1166585 2008

  48. [48]

    , year = 1995, month = nov, volume =

    Mayor , M., & Queloz , D. 1995, , 378, 355, 10.1038/378355a0

    work page doi:10.1038/378355a0 1995

  49. [49]

    Militzer, B., & Hubbard, W. B. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, 148, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/148

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/2/148 2013

  50. [50]

    V., Mukherjee , S., Marley , M

    Morley , C. V., Mukherjee , S., Marley , M. S., et al. 2024, , 975, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71d5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad71d5 2024

  51. [51]

    2020, , 638, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937376

    M \"u ller , S., Helled , R., & Cumming , A. 2020, , 638, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937376

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937376 2020

  52. [52]

    J., Moore , K., & Mankovich , C

    Nettelmann , N., Fortney , J. J., Moore , K., & Mankovich , C. 2015, , 447, 3422, 10.1093/mnras/stu2634

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2634 2015

  53. [53]

    W., Tremblin, P., Baraffe, I., et al

    Phillips , M. W., Tremblin , P., Baraffe , I., et al. 2020, , 637, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937381

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937381 2020

  54. [54]

    B., Grossman , A

    Pollack , J. B., Grossman , A. S., Moore , R., & Graboske , H. C., J. 1977, , 30, 111, 10.1016/0019-1035(77)90126-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(77)90126-9 1977

  55. [55]

    B., & Ohring , G

    Pollack , J. B., & Ohring , G. 1973, , 19, 34, 10.1016/0019-1035(73)90137-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(73)90137-1 1973

  56. [56]

    Saumon , D., & Marley , M. S. 2008, , 689, 1327, 10.1086/592734

    work page doi:10.1086/592734 2008

  57. [57]

    M., & Burrows , A

    Sharp , C. M., & Burrows , A. 2007, , 168, 140, 10.1086/508708

    work page doi:10.1086/508708 2007

  58. [58]

    2003, , 588, 1121, 10.1086/374331

    Sudarsky , D., Burrows , A., & Hubeny , I. 2003, , 588, 1121, 10.1086/374331

    work page doi:10.1086/374331 2003

  59. [59]

    2005, , 627, 520, 10.1086/430206

    Sudarsky , D., Burrows , A., Hubeny , I., & Li , A. 2005, , 627, 520, 10.1086/430206

    work page doi:10.1086/430206 2005

  60. [60]

    2000, , 538, 885, 10.1086/309160

    Sudarsky , D., Burrows , A., & Pinto , P. 2000, , 538, 885, 10.1086/309160

    work page doi:10.1086/309160 2000

  61. [61]

    T., Burrows , A., & Chen , Y.-X

    Sur , A., Arevalo , R. T., Burrows , A., & Chen , Y.-X. 2026, , 998, 305, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a85

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3a85 2026

  62. [62]

    T., & Su , Y

    Sur , A., Burrows , A., Arevalo , R. T., & Su , Y. 2025 a , , 994, 186, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae16a3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae16a3 2025

  63. [63]

    2024, , 971, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad57c3

    Sur , A., Su , Y., Tejada Arevalo , R., Chen , Y.-X., & Burrows , A. 2024, , 971, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad57c3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad57c3 2024

  64. [64]

    2025 b , , 980, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/adad62

    Sur , A., Tejada Arevalo , R., Su , Y., & Burrows , A. 2025 b , , 980, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/adad62

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adad62 2025

  65. [65]

    2024, , 274, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6cd7

    Tejada Arevalo , R., Su , Y., Sur , A., & Burrows , A. 2024, , 274, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6cd7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6cd7 2024

  66. [66]

    2025, , 979, 243, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada030

    Tejada Arevalo , R., Sur , A., Su , Y., & Burrows , A. 2025, , 979, 243, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada030

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada030 2025

  67. [67]

    2018, , 610, L14, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732522

    Vazan , A., Helled , R., & Guillot , T. 2018, , 610, L14, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732522

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732522 2018

  68. [68]

    2016, , 829, 118, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/118

    Vazan , A., Helled , R., Podolak , M., & Kovetz , A. 2016, , 829, 118, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/118

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/118 2016

  69. [69]

    N., & Tennyson , J

    Yurchenko , S. N., & Tennyson , J. 2014, , 440, 1649, 10.1093/mnras/stu326

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu326 2014