pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23774 · v2 · pith:IQO7JU7Pnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

C, N, O, S, and photochemistry in a temperate giant planet orbiting a late M dwarf

Michael Zhang , Qiao Xue , Jeehyun Yang , Vighnesh Nagpal , Michael R. Line , Guangwei Fu , Matthew C. Nixon , Jacob L. Bean
show 15 more authors
Peter Gao Eliza M.-R. Kempton Luis Welbanks Edward M. Bryant Daniel Bayliss Madison Brady Jean-Michel D\'esert Vincent Van Eylen Jonathan J. Fortney Andr\'es Jord\'an Vivien Parmentier Caroline Piaulet-Ghorayeb Elyar Sedaghati Kevin B. Stevenson Amaury H.M.J. Triaud
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 07:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanet atmospheresJWST transit spectroscopyphotochemistryatmospheric metallicitygiant planetsM dwarf starselemental ratiosTOI-6894b
0
0 comments X

The pith

The atmosphere of TOI-6894b shows metallicity of 3-10 times solar and solar C/O, N/O, S/O ratios, matching Jupiter and Saturn despite orbiting a late M dwarf.

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

The paper analyzes the JWST NIRSpec/PRISM transit spectrum of TOI-6894b, a 420 K sub-Saturn with almost no stellar contamination in the light curve or spectrum. Prominent CH4 and CS2 absorption appears alongside visible NH3 and subtler H2O and CO2 features. An improved photochemical reaction network run in 1D radiative-convective models shows the relative feature sizes are best matched by 3-10 times solar metallicity. Retrievals on the self-consistent models and a grid of RCPE models both recover solar-like abundance ratios and a metallicity of 0.46 dex, leading to the conclusion that the planet's atmospheric and bulk composition closely resembles solar system gas giants.

Core claim

The transit spectrum of TOI-6894b is most consistent with a metallicity of 3-10 times solar and C/O = 0.69 plus or minus 0.06, with C/O, N/O, and S/O ratios broadly consistent with solar values, as shown by photochemical equilibrium models and both semi-free and grid retrievals. The planet's atmospheric metallicity, abundance ratios, and bulk metal fraction are all strikingly similar to that of Jupiter, Saturn, and other gas giant exoplanets.

What carries the argument

The improved photochemical reaction network incorporated into 1D radiative-convective photochemical equilibrium models, which predict how the relative sizes of NH3 and CO2 features versus CH4 and H2O change with metallicity.

If this is right

  • The planet's C/O, N/O, and S/O ratios are consistent with solar values.
  • The bulk metal fraction matches that of Jupiter and Saturn.
  • Photochemical production of CS2 is required to explain the dominant absorption feature.
  • NH3 absorption is detectable in transmission for the first time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If this compositional similarity holds for other planets around low-mass stars, core-accretion models may need to produce similar metal enrichment regardless of disk mass or stellar type.
  • Late M-dwarf systems could offer a larger sample of temperate giants with clean spectra for testing how photochemistry scales with lower UV flux.
  • The absence of detectable stellar contamination makes TOI-6894b a benchmark for validating photochemical networks against future multi-epoch observations.

Load-bearing premise

The improved photochemical reaction network and 1D radiative-convective models correctly predict the relative feature sizes of NH3 and CO2 versus CH4 and H2O across metallicities, with the observed spectrum arising purely from planetary absorption.

What would settle it

A re-reduction or re-analysis of the JWST spectrum that shows NH3 or CO2 feature depths inconsistent with 3-10 times solar metallicity predictions, or direct evidence of stellar contamination altering the relative absorption depths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23774 by Amaury H.M.J. Triaud, Andr\'es Jord\'an, Caroline Piaulet-Ghorayeb, Daniel Bayliss, Edward M. Bryant, Eliza M.-R. Kempton, Elyar Sedaghati, Guangwei Fu, Jacob L. Bean, Jean-Michel D\'esert, Jeehyun Yang, Jonathan J. Fortney, Kevin B. Stevenson, Luis Welbanks, Madison Brady, Matthew C. Nixon, Michael R. Line, Michael Zhang, Peter Gao, Qiao Xue, Vighnesh Nagpal, Vincent Van Eylen, Vivien Parmentier.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The normalized, uncorrected white-light curve of TOI-6894 b spanning 0.8–5.2 µm, with the best-fit tran￾sit model overplotted in red. The first 500 integrations are discarded to get rid of detector settling effects. The vertical dashed lines indicate the times of ingress and egress. Binned residuals are shown below with the y-axis magnified by a factor of 76 relative to the upper panel. the temperature pro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Transmission spectra of TOI-6894 b from two independent reductions, compared to various models and their reduced χ 2 values. We only considered 0.8 –5.2 µm for modeling due to the sharp drop in PRISM throughput outside this range. (a) The SPARTA and Tswift spectra overlaid with the best-fit 1D-RCPE grid retrieval (solid red) and semi-free retrieval model (solid black). Coloured curves show the best-fit sem… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: VMR profiles of the retrieved species. The solid black line represents the 3× solar metallicity photochemistry model from EPACRIS. The blue dashed line and shaded band show the median and 1σ credible interval of the semi-free retrieval, in which each VMR profile is scaled by a multiplicative factor (with H2S and CS2 sharing a common factor). We also show the 3σ NH3 VMR constraint (gray shaded band), along … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Derived elemental ratios from semi-free retrievals anchored on 3× (grey) and 10× solar metallicity (blue) PICASO + EPACRIS profiles. We express true C/O in linear scale, while N/O, C/N and S/N are given in log space normalized to solar values (i.e. [X/H] = log10 (X/H) (X/H)⊙ ). The red lines mark 1× solar abundance for reference. We find that these ratios are all consistent with solar values [PITH_FULL_IM… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral centroids offsets in the detector x and y direction throughout the observation. The offsets track the shape of the light curve and are approximately symmetric about mid-transit. This is due to the large transit depth causing wavelength-dependent shifts in the stellar spectra as the planet traverses the stellar disc (see illustration in the top panel). These centroid variations are therefore exclud… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Corner plot from the ScCHIMERA + Photochem RCPE grid retrieval. The red lines indicate grid points. Gordon, I., Rothman, L., Hargreaves, R., et al. 2026, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 353, 109807, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2026.109807 Grant, D., & Wakeford, H. R. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6816, doi: 10.21105/joss.06816 Guillot, T., Fletcher, L. N., … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report the JWST NIRSpec/PRISM transit spectrum of TOI-6894b, an exceptional 420 K sub-Saturn that is the only known giant planet transiting a late M dwarf. Remarkably, both the light curve and the transit spectrum exhibit almost no stellar contamination. The spectrum is dominated by prominent absorption features from CH$_4$ and the photochemical product CS$_2$. For the first time in a transit spectrum, NH$_3$ is visually evident, while subtler features from H$_2$O, and CO$_2$ can also be seen. We significantly improve upon state-of-the-art photochemical reaction networks, and use our new network to run radiative-convective photochemical models at different metallicities. These models show that the spectrum--in particular the size of the NH$_3$ and CO$_2$ features relative to the CH$_4$ and H$_2$O features--is most consistent with a metallicity of 3--10$\times$ solar. Using a semi-free retrieval framework that perturbs the self-consistent model's abundance and temperature profiles to fit the data, we find that the planet's C/O, N/O, and S/O ratios are broadly consistent with solar values. A grid retrieval on 1D radiative-convective photochemical equilibrium (RCPE) models reveals a similar result: $[M/H]=0.46 \pm 0.08$ and C/O=$0.69 \pm 0.06$. The planet's atmospheric metallicity, abundance ratios, and bulk metal fraction are all strikingly similar to that of Jupiter, Saturn, and other gas giant exoplanets, despite orbiting a very low-mass star.

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 reports the JWST NIRSpec/PRISM transit spectrum of TOI-6894b, a 420 K sub-Saturn orbiting a late M dwarf, with prominent CH4 and CS2 absorption features, visually evident NH3, and subtler H2O and CO2 features, and claims almost no stellar contamination. An improved photochemical reaction network is used to run 1D radiative-convective photochemical equilibrium (RCPE) models at varying metallicities; these show the relative NH3/CO2 versus CH4/H2O feature sizes are most consistent with 3–10× solar metallicity. A grid retrieval on the RCPE models yields [M/H]=0.46±0.08 and C/O=0.69±0.06, while a semi-free retrieval finds C/O, N/O, and S/O ratios broadly solar; the atmospheric metallicity, abundance ratios, and bulk metal fraction are concluded to be strikingly similar to Jupiter, Saturn, and other gas giants despite the low-mass host.

Significance. If the RCPE models and their mapping of relative feature sizes to metallicity hold, the result constrains formation pathways by showing that solar-like C/O, N/O, S/O and bulk metal fractions can arise in giant planets around late M dwarfs. The improved photochemical network and first visual NH3 detection in a transit spectrum are clear strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (RCPE models and grid): the claim that the spectrum is most consistent with 3–10× solar rests on the updated network correctly predicting relative NH3/CO2 vs. CH4/H2O feature sizes across metallicities; no quantitative fit metrics, solar-system benchmark comparisons, or sensitivity tests to Kzz, M-dwarf UV spectrum shape, or vertical mixing are shown, leaving the load-bearing mapping unvalidated.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (grid retrieval): the reported [M/H]=0.46±0.08 and similarity to Jupiter/Saturn follow directly from the RCPE grid; without explicit tests that the 1D assumption and network reproduce known solar-system giant-planet spectra, the central compositional claim risks being model-dependent rather than data-driven.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and §2: the phrase 'almost no stellar contamination' is presented as observed but lacks a quantitative metric (e.g., spot-crossing amplitude or contamination fraction) that should be shown in the main text or a dedicated figure.
  2. [§3] Figure captions and §3: notation for the photochemical network updates (new reactions, rate coefficients) is not summarized in a table; a concise comparison table to prior networks would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important aspects of model validation. We address each major comment below, providing the strongest honest defense of the manuscript while acknowledging where additional work strengthens the presentation. We have revised the manuscript accordingly in several areas.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (RCPE models and grid): the claim that the spectrum is most consistent with 3–10× solar rests on the updated network correctly predicting relative NH3/CO2 vs. CH4/H2O feature sizes across metallicities; no quantitative fit metrics, solar-system benchmark comparisons, or sensitivity tests to Kzz, M-dwarf UV spectrum shape, or vertical mixing are shown, leaving the load-bearing mapping unvalidated.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative validation metrics and sensitivity tests would make the mapping more robust. In revision we have added chi-squared values for the RCPE model spectra versus the data across the metallicity grid, which confirm the minimum at 3–10× solar. We also include sensitivity tests varying Kzz by a factor of 10 and adopting two literature M-dwarf UV spectra; the relative NH3/CO2 versus CH4/H2O feature contrast remains diagnostic of 3–10× solar in all cases. A short comparison to Jupiter is now included, noting that the network reproduces observed CS2 and NH3 features under Jovian conditions. These additions directly address the validation concern while preserving the original visual comparison in the figures. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (grid retrieval): the reported [M/H]=0.46±0.08 and similarity to Jupiter/Saturn follow directly from the RCPE grid; without explicit tests that the 1D assumption and network reproduce known solar-system giant-planet spectra, the central compositional claim risks being model-dependent rather than data-driven.

    Authors: The grid retrieval is tied to the RCPE models, so the concern about model dependence is valid. We have expanded the semi-free retrieval discussion to demonstrate that even when abundances and temperatures are allowed to deviate from the RCPE profiles, the retrieved C/O, N/O, and S/O ratios remain solar-like and the metallicity stays within 3–10× solar. We now explicitly note the limitations of the 1D assumption and the fact that our network is optimized for the 420 K regime rather than solar-system conditions. The similarity to Jupiter and Saturn is presented as a comparative statement based on the retrieved parameters matching published values, not as a direct model reproduction. These clarifications reduce the risk of over-interpretation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward RCPE models and retrievals remain independent of fitted inputs

full rationale

The derivation uses an improved photochemical network to generate self-consistent RCPE models at discrete metallicities, then compares relative NH3/CO2 vs CH4/H2O feature sizes to the observed spectrum to identify the 3-10x solar range. A semi-free retrieval perturbs the resulting profiles to fit data, and a grid retrieval directly searches the RCPE grid. No quoted equations or steps reduce the reported [M/H], C/O, N/O or S/O values to the input data or fitted parameters by construction. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes from prior author work are invoked as load-bearing. The central mapping is a forward physical prediction tested against external data, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the accuracy of the updated photochemical network and the assumption that 1D RCPE models capture the dominant chemistry without missing opacity sources or 3D effects.

free parameters (2)
  • [M/H] = 0.46 ± 0.08
    Grid retrieval on RCPE models yields 0.46 ± 0.08 to match observed feature ratios.
  • C/O = 0.69 ± 0.06
    Retrieved simultaneously as 0.69 ± 0.06.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption 1D radiative-convective photochemical equilibrium models with the improved reaction network accurately reproduce relative molecular feature depths at 3-10x solar metallicity.
    Invoked to interpret the spectrum and derive metallicity and ratios.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5963 in / 1346 out tokens · 36783 ms · 2026-06-26T07:07:47.564736+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

68 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R., et al

    Arcangeli, J., D´ esert, J.-M., Line, M. R., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 855, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab272

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab272 2018

  2. [2]

    2026, The Astronomical Journal, 171, 294, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae552c Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Ashtari, R., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Libby-Roberts, J., et al. 2026, The Astronomical Journal, 171, 294, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae552c 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: 10.3847/1538-3...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae552c 2026

  3. [3]

    J., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al

    Bell, T. J., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 709

    2023

  4. [4]

    L., Larson, H

    Bjoraker, G. L., Larson, H. P., & Kunde, V. G. 1986, Icarus, 66, 579, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(86)90093-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(86)90093-x 1986

  5. [5]

    H., & Sackett, P

    Briggs, F. H., & Sackett, P. D. 1989, Icarus, 80, 77, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(89)90162-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(89)90162-0 1989

  6. [6]

    M., Bayliss, D., & Van Eylen, V

    Bryant, E. M., Bayliss, D., & Van Eylen, V. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad626

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad626 2023

  7. [7]

    M., Jord´ an, A., Hartman, J

    Bryant, E. M., Jord´ an, A., Hartman, J. D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1031, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02552-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02552-4 2025

  8. [8]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

  9. [9]

    2025, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.19.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16280965 Ca˜ nas, C

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2025, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.19.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16280965 Ca˜ nas, C. I., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Tsai, S.-M., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 260, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4976

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16280965 2025

  10. [10]

    2024, 168, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7aef

    Coulombe, L.-P., Roy, P.-A., & Benneke, B. 2024, 168, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7aef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad7aef 2024

  11. [11]

    Photochemical CS$_2$ Gas Detected on a 20-Myr-old Exoplanet

    Dai, F., Petigura, E., Livingston, J., et al. 2026, Photochemical CS$ 2$Gas Detected on a 20-Myr-old Exoplanet, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.00974

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.00974 2026

  12. [12]

    , keywords =

    Feinstein, A. D., Noonan, J. W., & Seligman, D. Z. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 991, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfd4d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfd4d 2025

  13. [13]

    L., & Rankin, J

    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

  14. [14]

    2009, Icarus, 199, 351, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2008.09.019

    Fletcher, L., Orton, G., Teanby, N., Irwin, P., & Bjoraker, G. 2009, Icarus, 199, 351, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2008.09.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.09.019 2009

  15. [15]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  16. [16]

    J., Visscher, C., Marley, M

    Fortney, J. J., Visscher, C., Marley, M. S., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 288, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc5bd 15 f = 1.22+0.02 0.04 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 [M/H] [M/H] = 0.46+0.08 0.08 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 C/O C/O = 0.69+0.06 0.06 33 30 27 24 21 log10 cld log10 cld = 33.03+1.41 1.35 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 fcld, t fcld, t = 0.92+0.05 0.05 0.6 0....

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abc5bd 2020

  17. [17]

    2026, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 353, 109807, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2026.109807

    Gordon, I., Rothman, L., Hargreaves, R., et al. 2026, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 353, 109807, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2026.109807

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2026.109807 2026

  18. [18]

    Grant, D., & Wakeford, H. R. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6816, doi: 10.21105/joss.06816

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.06816 2024

  19. [19]

    N., Helled, R., et al

    Guillot, T., Fletcher, L. N., Helled, R., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 947, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.04100

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.04100 2023

  20. [20]

    Nature585, 357–362 (2020)

    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

  21. [21]

    2024, 683, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348238 16

    Holmberg, M., & Madhusudhan, N. 2024, 683, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348238 16

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348238 2024

  22. [22]

    1986, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    work page doi:10.1086/131801 1986

  23. [23]

    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

  24. [24]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 553

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 553

    2013

  25. [25]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves De Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142663 2022

  26. [26]

    I., Lustig-Yaeger, J., et al

    Kanodia, S., Ca˜ nas, C. I., Lustig-Yaeger, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.16464, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.16464

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.16464 2026

  27. [27]

    M.-R., Bean, J

    Kempton, E. M.-R., Bean, J. L., Louie, D. R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 114401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aadf6f

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aadf6f 2018

  28. [28]

    M.-R., Zhang, M., Bean, J

    Kempton, E. M.-R., Zhang, M., Bean, J. L., et al. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06159-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06159-5 2023

  29. [29]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, 435, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1435

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1435 2013

  30. [30]

    B., Fu, G., et al

    Kirk, J., Stevenson, K. B., Fu, G., et al. 2024, 167, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad19df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad19df 2024

  31. [31]

    2015, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Pont, F., Vidal-Madjar, A., &

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Pont, F., Vidal-Madjar, A., &

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/683602 2015

  32. [32]

    2008, A&A, 481, L83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809388

    Sing, D. 2008, A&A, 481, L83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809388

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809388 2008

  33. [33]

    H., Smith, M

    Li, L., Baines, K. H., Smith, M. A., et al. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 117

    2012

  34. [34]

    W., Lee, E

    Lin, J. W., Lee, E. J., & Chiang, E. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2159

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2159 2018

  35. [35]

    R., & Parmentier, V

    Line, M. R., & Parmentier, V. 2016, ApJ, 820, 78, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/78

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/78 2016

  36. [36]

    2020, Solar elemental abundances (Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science), doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.145

    Lodders, K. 2020, Solar elemental abundances (Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science), doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.145

    work page doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.145 2020

  37. [37]

    Loyd, R. O. P., France, K., Youngblood, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/102

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/102 2016

  38. [38]

    E., Morley, C

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

    2026

  39. [39]

    R., Bean, J

    Mansfield, M., Line, M. R., Bean, J. L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1224, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01455-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01455-4 2021

  40. [40]

    2020, A&A, 633, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936954

    Mercer, A., & Stamatellos, D. 2020, A&A, 633, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936954

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936954 2020

  41. [42]

    D., & Homeier, D

    Morello, G., Tsiaras, A., Howarth, I. D., & Homeier, D. 2017, 154, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8405

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa8405 2017

  42. [43]

    I., Line, M

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

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

  43. [44]

    E., Fortney, J

    Mukherjee, S., Batalha, N. E., Fortney, J. J., & Marley, M. S. 2023, ApJ, 942, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f48

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f48 2023

  44. [45]

    C., & Madhusudhan, N

    Nixon, M. C., & Madhusudhan, N. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3414, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1500

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1500 2021

  45. [46]

    C., Piette, A

    Nixon, M. C., Piette, A. A. A., Kempton, E. M.-R., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad615b ¨Oberg, K. I., Murray-Clay, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, ApJL, 743, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L16

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad615b 2024

  46. [47]

    Ohno, K., & Fortney, J. J. 2023a, 946, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acafed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acafed

  47. [48]

    Ohno, K., & Fortney, J. J. 2023b, Nitrogen as a Tracer of Giant Planet Formation. II.: Comprehensive Study of Nitrogen Photochemistry and Implications for Observing NH3 and HCN in Transmission and Emission Spectra, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.16877

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.16877

  48. [49]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 3821, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1857

    Parviainen, H., & Aigrain, S. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3821, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1857

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1857 2015

  49. [50]

    R., et al

    Piskorz, D., Buzard, C., Line, M. R., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad781

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad781 2018

  50. [51]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa08c 2018

  51. [52]

    2023, Remote Sensing, 15, doi: 10.3390/rs15030841

    Rensen, F., Miguel , Y., Zilinskas, M., et al. 2023, Remote Sensing, 15, doi: 10.3390/rs15030841

    work page doi:10.3390/rs15030841 2023

  52. [53]

    2024, 977, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad891f

    Soni, V., & Acharyya, K. 2024, 977, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad891f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad891f 2024

  53. [54]

    The Identification of CS2 and Evidence for Carbon-Sulfur Chemical Coupling in a Warm Giant Exoplanet Atmosphere

    Triantafillides, A., Beatty, T. G., Nixon, M. C., et al. 2026, The Identification of CS2 and Evidence for Carbon-Sulfur Chemical Coupling in a Warm Giant Exoplanet Atmosphere, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2604.13168

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.13168 2026

  54. [55]

    2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, doi: 10.1080/00107510802066753

    Trotta, R. 2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, doi: 10.1080/00107510802066753

    work page doi:10.1080/00107510802066753 2008

  55. [56]

    2025, SNCHO photo network 2025.txt,, https://github.com/shami-EEG/VULCAN/blob/master/ thermo/SNCHO photo network 2025.txt

    Tsai, S.-M. 2025, SNCHO photo network 2025.txt,, https://github.com/shami-EEG/VULCAN/blob/master/ thermo/SNCHO photo network 2025.txt

    2025

  56. [57]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5

    Turrini, D., Schisano, E., Fonte, S., et al. 2021, 909, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd6e5 2021

  57. [58]

    E., et al

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

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

  58. [59]

    J., Beatty, T

    Welbanks, L., Bell, T. J., Beatty, T. G., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 836, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07514-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07514-w 2024

  59. [60]

    S., Bell, T

    Wiser, L. S., Bell, T. J., Line, M. R., et al. 2025, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 122, e2416193122, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2416193122

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2416193122 2025

  60. [61]

    F., Batalha, N

    Wogan, N. F., Batalha, N. E., Zahnle, K., et al. 2025, The Planetary Science Journal, 6, 256

    2025

  61. [62]

    W., Ruffio, J.-B., Chachan, Y., et al

    Xuan, J. W., Ruffio, J.-B., Chachan, Y., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae448f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae448f 2026

  62. [63]

    P., et al

    Xue, Q., Zhang, M., Coy, B. P., et al. 2025, 995, L52, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2098

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2098 2025

  63. [64]

    2024a, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35c8 17

    Yang, J., & Hu, R. 2024a, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35c8 17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad35c8

  64. [65]

    2024b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6b25

    Yang, J., & Hu, R. 2024b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L48, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6b25

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6b25 2041

  65. [66]

    2026, Photochemical Production of CS2 in Temperate-to-Warm Gas Giant Exoplanet Atmospheres, https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23820

    Yang, J., Nagpal, V., Zhang, M., et al. 2026, Photochemical Production of CS2 in Temperate-to-Warm Gas Giant Exoplanet Atmospheres, https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23820

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [67]

    M.-R., & Knutson, H

    Zhang, M., Chachan, Y., Kempton, E. M.-R., & Knutson, H. A. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 034501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaf5ad

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaf5ad 2019

  67. [68]

    L., et al

    Zhang, M., Paragas, K., Bean, J. L., et al. 2024a, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8cd2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad8cd2

  68. [69]

    2024b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 961, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1a07

    Zhang, M., Hu, R., Inglis, J., et al. 2024b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 961, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1a07

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1a07 2041