pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.26075 · v1 · pith:MXNDC2VDnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Glossy Silicate Clouds on the Scorched Dayside of LTT9779b

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 19:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanet atmospheressilicate cloudsLTT9779bJWSTultra-hot Neptuneatmospheric retrievalgeometric albedoC/O ratio
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reflective silicate clouds on the dayside of LTT9779b explain its high albedo better than extreme metallicity.

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

The paper analyzes JWST NIRISS and NIRSpec observations of the ultra-hot Neptune LTT9779b to characterize its dayside atmosphere. It reports a 3-to-5 sigma detection of clouds with strong evidence for magnesium silicate condensation. This detection supports the conclusion that a reflective cloud deck, rather than an extremely metal-rich atmosphere, accounts for the planet's anomalously high optical albedo. The work also yields detections of CO and CO2 along with a constrained C/O ratio near 0.98.

Core claim

A comprehensive panchromatic analysis of LTT9779b's dayside atmosphere using JWST NIRISS and NIRSpec/G395H observations reveals a 3-to-5σ detection of dayside clouds with strong evidence for Mg2SiO4(s) condensation. This is the first statistically significant detection of clouds on the dayside of a Neptunian-mass exoplanet. The data show that a highly reflective cloud deck is the most likely explanation for the anomalously high optical albedo, rather than an extremely high-metallicity atmosphere. Robust detections of CO (~4.88σ) and CO2 (~8.76σ) are reported along with a C/O ratio of 0.984 ± 0.019.

What carries the argument

Atmospheric retrievals on panchromatic JWST spectra that separate the spectral signature of a reflective Mg2SiO4 cloud deck from metallicity effects.

If this is right

  • A highly reflective cloud deck rather than extreme metallicity explains the high geometric albedo.
  • CO and CO2 are present with detections at 4.88σ and 8.76σ respectively.
  • The C/O ratio is 0.984 ± 0.019 and aligns with super-solar values seen in ultra-hot Jupiters.
  • Silicate condensation occurs on the dayside of this Neptunian-mass planet.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Oxygen sequestration by clouds may drive high C/O ratios across many ultra-hot atmospheres.
  • Similar JWST observations of other hot Neptunes could test whether dayside silicate clouds are common in this mass range.

Load-bearing premise

Atmospheric retrieval models can reliably separate the effects of a reflective cloud deck from those of extreme atmospheric metallicity without major degeneracies.

What would settle it

Higher-resolution or extended-wavelength spectra that allow an extreme-metallicity cloud-free model to fit the albedo and features as well as the cloud model would undermine the preference for silicate clouds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26075 by Diana Dragomir, Emma Esparza-Borges, Hayley Beltz, Ian J. M. Crossfield, James S. Jenkins, Jonathan Brande, Kevin B. Stevenson, Reza Ashtari, Sarah Stamer, Suman Saha, Tansu Daylan, Thomas M. Evans-Soma, Vivien Parmentier.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Equilibrium temperature vs. planetary radius for known transiting exoplanets. The ultra-hot Neptune LTT9779b is high￾lighted as the red star. The purple shaded region indicates the Nep￾tunian radius regime, whereas the green shaded region demarcates the “Neptunian desert”. both a metal-rich composition and the presence of dayside clouds—a scenario further supported by JWST NIRISS ob￾servations (Radica et a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Observed panchromatic emission spectra of LTT9779b—combining NIRISS and NIRSpec/G395H observations—shown in terms of brightness temperature (top panel), derived from two independent reductions of the raw data using Eureka! (red) and exoTEDRF (blue), followed by modeling of the binned spectroscopic light curves. The mean absolute difference between the two spectra is ∼0.6σ (bottom panel), indicating excelle… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Observed panchromatic emission spectra (Eureka!) shown with the retrieved best-fit free chemistry model (with Guillot P–T parametrization) and associated residuals. Additional models—excluding specific gaseous species and cloud components—are also overplotted for comparison. → ∞), thereby explaining the highly metal-enriched atmo￾spheric scenarios inferred in previous studies (e.g., Saha et al. 2025; Coulo… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Retrieved posterior P–T profiles from the free chemistry retrievals of the Eureka! spectrum using the Guillot P–T parametrization (top) and the neo-MS P–T parametrization (bottom), together with the corresponding posteriors for Mg2SiO4(s) condensation curves and abundance profiles. The median contribution functions associated with these retrievals are also shown. less pronounced in this case (see Figure A5… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of abundance posteriors for key molecular species—H2O, CO, and CO2—from free chemistry retrievals of the Eureka! spectrum, using the Guillot P–T parametrization (top panels) and the neo-MS P–T parametrization (bottom panels), across different model conditions. could potentially improve these detection significances and enable the definitive detection of refractory species such as SiO, TiO, and V… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Estimated C/O ratio of LTT9779b (red bowtie) shown alongside well-constrained JWST literature values for other exoplanets spanning a wide range of equilibrium temperatures (left panel). Step function fits, illustrating the onset of super-solar C/O ratios in ultra-hot gas giants, are shown both including and excluding LTT9779b (median and 1σ confidence intervals), along with the corresponding fit posteriors… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Discovered deep within the "Neptunian desert", LTT9779b remains the only known ultra-hot Neptune, prompting significant speculation regarding its unique formation and evolutionary history. Its exceptionally high geometric albedo has previously been attributed either to the presence of clouds or to an extremely metal-rich atmosphere. Here, we present a comprehensive panchromatic analysis of its dayside atmosphere using JWST NIRISS and NIRSpec/G395H observations to characterize its atmospheric structure and composition. Leveraging the exceptional signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) in the observed spectra, we report a 3-to-5$\sigma$ detection of dayside clouds, with strong evidence for Mg$_2$SiO$_4$(s) (silicate) condensation. This constitutes the first statistically significant detection of clouds on the dayside of a Neptunian-mass exoplanet. We demonstrate that a highly reflective cloud deck, rather than an extremely high-metallicity atmosphere, is the most likely explanation for the planet's anomalously high optical albedo. Furthermore, our atmospheric retrievals yield robust detections of both CO ($\sim$4.88$\sigma$) and CO$_2$ ($\sim$8.76$\sigma$), while providing tentative constraints on the H$_2$O abundance and upper limits on SiO, TiO, and VO. Finally, our analysis places a robust constraint on the C/O ratio of 0.984 $\pm$ 0.019. This aligns LTT9779b with other known ultra-hot Jupiters exhibiting super-solar C/O ratios, suggesting a broader trend driven by the sequestration of oxygen-bearing condensates in ultra-hot atmospheres.

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 manuscript analyzes JWST NIRISS and NIRSpec/G395H panchromatic dayside spectra of the ultra-hot Neptune LTT9779b. It reports a 3–5σ detection of reflective silicate clouds (Mg₂SiO₄(s)), argues that these clouds (rather than extreme metallicity) explain the planet’s high optical albedo, presents ~4.88σ and ~8.76σ detections of CO and CO₂ respectively, and derives a C/O ratio of 0.984 ± 0.019 that aligns with other ultra-hot giants.

Significance. If the retrieval results hold, the work supplies the first statistically significant dayside cloud detection for any Neptunian-mass exoplanet and resolves the albedo puzzle for an object in the Neptunian desert. The reported C/O constraint and its comparison to ultra-hot Jupiters constitute a falsifiable trend that can be tested with additional targets.

major comments (1)
  1. [Atmospheric retrieval section (methods and results)] The central claim that a reflective cloud deck is preferred over extreme metallicity rests on the atmospheric retrieval’s ability to break the degeneracy between cloud optical depth/albedo and atmospheric metallicity. The manuscript should include explicit posterior corner plots or Bayes-factor comparisons between the two families of models (with and without the Mg₂SiO₄ cloud deck) to demonstrate that the separation is not driven by prior volume or parameterization choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states “strong evidence for Mg₂SiO₄(s) condensation” but does not quote the precise detection significance or the Bayes factor relative to other condensates; the main text should tabulate these quantities for each species considered.
  2. Notation for the C/O ratio (0.984 ± 0.019) should be accompanied by the exact number of free parameters and the prior range used in the retrieval to allow direct comparison with other ultra-hot Jupiter studies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and positive assessment of the manuscript. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses
  1. Referee: The central claim that a reflective cloud deck is preferred over extreme metallicity rests on the atmospheric retrieval’s ability to break the degeneracy between cloud optical depth/albedo and atmospheric metallicity. The manuscript should include explicit posterior corner plots or Bayes-factor comparisons between the two families of models (with and without the Mg₂SiO₄ cloud deck) to demonstrate that the separation is not driven by prior volume or parameterization choices.

    Authors: We agree that explicit model comparisons would strengthen the presentation. In the revised manuscript we will add (i) Bayes-factor comparisons between the fiducial retrieval (with Mg₂SiO₄ cloud deck) and an otherwise identical retrieval without the cloud deck, and (ii) corner plots of the joint posteriors for metallicity, cloud optical depth, and cloud albedo to demonstrate that the data, rather than prior volume, drive the preference for the cloudy solution. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper's claims of cloud detection, preference for a reflective Mg2SiO4 deck over high metallicity, molecular detections, and C/O ratio constraint are obtained via atmospheric retrievals on JWST NIRISS/NIRSpec spectra. These steps use observed spectral data as input and report posterior preferences without reducing to self-definition, fitted parameters renamed as independent predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the external spectral observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on standard exoplanet atmospheric retrieval assumptions and the ability of the data to break the cloud-metallicity degeneracy; one fitted parameter (C/O) is reported.

free parameters (1)
  • C/O ratio = 0.984 ± 0.019
    Fitted value reported from retrievals on the observed spectra.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Atmospheric retrieval models assume equilibrium chemistry and specific cloud optical properties that allow separation from metallicity effects.
    Invoked implicitly when claiming clouds explain albedo better than high metallicity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5895 in / 1274 out tokens · 38257 ms · 2026-06-25T19:00:53.043339+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

80 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    S., & Marley, M

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

  2. [2]

    R., Alam, M

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3

  3. [3]

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

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

  4. [4]

    2025, AJ, 170, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adec89

    Barat, S., D´esert, J.-M., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adec89

  5. [5]

    and Yurchenko, Sergei N

    Barton, E. J., Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1469, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1105

  6. [6]

    J., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al

    Bell, T. J., Ahrer, E.-M., Brande, J., et al. 2022, Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503, doi: 10.21105/joss.04503

  7. [7]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03325

    Benneke, B., Roy, P.-A., Coulombe, L.-P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03325, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03325

  8. [8]

    2024, A&A, 690, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450767

    Blain, D., Landman, R., Molli`ere, P., & Dittmann, J. 2024, A&A, 690, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450767

  9. [9]

    2002, A&A, 390, 779, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020555

    Borysow, A. 2002, A&A, 390, 779, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020555

  10. [10]

    1989, ApJ, 336, 495, doi: 10.1086/167027

    Borysow, A., Frommhold, L., & Moraldi, M. 1989, ApJ, 336, 495, doi: 10.1086/167027

  11. [11]

    G., & Fu, Y

    Borysow, A., Jorgensen, U. G., & Fu, Y . 2001, JQSRT, 68, 235, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4073(00)00023-6

  12. [12]

    , keywords =

    Borysow, J., Frommhold, L., & Birnbaum, G. 1988, ApJ, 326, 509, doi: 10.1086/166112

  13. [13]

    Brande, J., Crossfield, I. J. M., Ashtari, R., et al. 2026, Under review

  14. [14]

    X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue

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

  15. [15]

    2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.7.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7071140

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.7.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7071140

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Calamari, E., Faherty, J. K., Visscher, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1f6d

  17. [17]

    Proceedings of the Physical Society , year = 1965, month = feb, volume =

    Chan, Y . M., & Dalgarno, A. 1965, Proceedings of the Physical Society, 85, 227, doi: 10.1088/0370-1328/85/2/304

  18. [18]

    Costa, G. C. C., Jacobson, N. S., & Fegley, Jr., B. 2017, Icarus, 289, 42, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.02.006

  19. [19]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 512, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02488-9

    Coulombe, L.-P., Radica, M., Benneke, B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 512, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02488-9

  20. [20]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Dragomir, D., Cowan, N. B., et al. 2020, ApJL, 903, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbc71

  21. [21]

    Dalgarno, A., & Williams, D. A. 1962, ApJ, 136, 690, doi: 10.1086/147428

  22. [22]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.27223, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.27223

    Deka, T., Majumdar, L., Basra Khan, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.27223, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.27223

  23. [23]

    J., Hutchings, J

    Doyon, R., Willott, C. J., Hutchings, J. B., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 098001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd41b

  24. [24]

    Dragomir, D., Crossfield, I. J. M., Benneke, B., et al. 2020, ApJL, 903, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbc70

  25. [25]

    2024, ApJL, 962, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2000

    Edwards, B., & Changeat, Q. 2024, ApJL, 962, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2000

  26. [26]

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

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

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

  28. [28]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 4683, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad245

    Fonte, S., Turrini, D., Pacetti, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4683, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad245

  29. [29]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

  30. [30]

    2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S., & Angus, R. 2017, AJ, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

  31. [31]

    E., Wogan, N., et al

    Gressier, A., Batalha, N. E., Wogan, N., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 292, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae0929

  32. [32]

    2010, A&A, 520, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396

    Guillot, T. 2010, A&A, 520, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Hargreaves, R. J., Gordon, I. E., Rey, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7a1a

  34. [34]

    Jones, H. R. A. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 400, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09960.x 12

  35. [35]

    1997, A&A, 327, 743

    Henning, T., & Mutschke, H. 1997, A&A, 327, 743

  36. [36]

    S., Parmentier, V ., et al

    Hoyer, S., Jenkins, J. S., Parmentier, V ., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346117

  37. [37]

    E., Lewis, N

    Inglis, J., Batalha, N. E., Lewis, N. K., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad725e

  38. [38]

    E., Pavlyuchenkov, Y

    Ionov, D. E., Pavlyuchenkov, Y . N., & Shematovich, V . I. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 5639, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty626

  39. [39]

    1994, A&A, 292, 641

    Henning, T. 1994, A&A, 292, 641

  40. [40]

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

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

  41. [41]

    S., D´ıaz, M

    Jenkins, J. S., D´ıaz, M. R., Kurtovic, N. T., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1148, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1142-z

  42. [42]

    Kass and Adrian E

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

  43. [43]

    Khorshid, N., Min, M., Polman, J., & Waters, L. B. F. M. 2024, A&A, 685, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347124

  44. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 94, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3141

    Kitzmann, D., & Heng, K. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 94, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3141

  45. [45]

    1995, Icarus, 114, 203, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1055

    Koike, C., Kaito, C., Yamamoto, T., et al. 1995, Icarus, 114, 203, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1055

  46. [46]

    batman: BAsic Transit Model cAlculatioN in Python

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

  47. [47]

    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

  48. [48]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24

    Madhusudhan, N., & Seager, S. 2009, ApJ, 707, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/24

  49. [49]

    B., et al

    Madhusudhan, N., Harrington, J., Stevenson, K. B., et al. 2011, Nature, 469, 64, doi: 10.1038/nature09602

  50. [50]

    W., Fortenbach, C

    Mayo, A. W., Fortenbach, C. D., Louie, D. R., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adda2e

  51. [51]

    2016, A&A, 589, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528065

    Mazeh, T., Holczer, T., & Faigler, S. 2016, A&A, 589, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528065

  52. [52]

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

    Meech, A., Claringbold, A. B., Ahrer, E.-M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 1381, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf530

  53. [53]

    P., van Boekel , R., et al

    Molli`ere, P., Wardenier, J. P., van Boekel, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935470

  54. [54]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 5875, doi: 10.21105/joss.05875

    Nasedkin, E., Molli`ere, P., & Blain, D. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 5875, doi: 10.21105/joss.05875

  55. [55]

    C., Asnodkar, A

    Petz, S., Johnson, M. C., Asnodkar, A. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7079, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3481

  56. [56]

    , keywords =

    Pollack, J. B., Hollenbach, D., Beckwith, S., et al. 1994, ApJ, 421, 615, doi: 10.1086/173677

  57. [57]

    L., Kyuberis, A

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

  58. [58]

    2003, ApJS, 149, 437, doi: 10.1086/379167

    Posch, T., Kerschbaum, F., Fabian, D., et al. 2003, ApJS, 149, 437, doi: 10.1086/379167

  59. [59]

    D., Lee, E

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

  60. [60]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6898, doi: 10.21105/joss.06898

    Radica, M. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6898, doi: 10.21105/joss.06898

  61. [61]

    2024, ApJL, 962, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad20e4 Ram´ırez Reyes, R., Jenkins, J

    Radica, M., Coulombe, L.-P., Taylor, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 962, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad20e4 Ram´ırez Reyes, R., Jenkins, J. S., Sedaghati, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451044

  62. [62]

    Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems , year = 2015, month = jan, volume =

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

  63. [63]

    , year = 2010, month = oct, volume =

    Rothman, L. S., Gordon, I. E., Barber, R. J., et al. 2010, JQSRT, 111, 2139, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2010.05.001

  64. [64]

    Rothman and I.E

    Rothman, L. S., Gordon, I. E., Babikov, Y ., et al. 2013, JQSRT, 130, 4, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2013.07.002

  65. [65]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdb6b —

    Saha, S. 2023, ApJS, 268, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdb6b —. 2024, ApJS, 274, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6a60 —. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 928, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf550

  66. [66]

    2021, AJ, 162, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac01dd

    Saha, S., Chakrabarty, A., & Sengupta, S. 2021, AJ, 162, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac01dd

  67. [67]

    Saha, S., & Jenkins, J. S. 2025a, ApJL, 994, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1c1c —. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11479, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11479 —. 2026, AJ, 171, 295, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae5481

  68. [68]

    2021, AJ, 162, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac294d

    Saha, S., & Sengupta, S. 2021, AJ, 162, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac294d

  69. [69]

    S., Parmentier, V ., et al

    Saha, S., Jenkins, J. S., Parmentier, V ., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554303

  70. [70]

    L., & Piriou, B

    Servoin, J. L., & Piriou, B. 1973, Physica Status Solidi B Basic Research, 55, 677, doi: 10.1002/pssb.2220550224

  71. [71]

    Shornikov, S. I. 2019, Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 93, 1024, doi: 10.1134/S0036024419060293

  72. [72]

    Materials Pushing the Application Limits of Wire Grid Polarizers further into the Deep Ultraviolet Spectral Range

    Siefke, T., Kroker, S., Pfeiffer, K., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1607.04866, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1607.04866

  73. [73]

    F., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Sousa-Silva, C., Al-Refaie, A. F., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2337, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2246

  74. [74]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

  75. [75]

    Stull, D. R. 1947, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 39, 517, doi: 10.1021/ie50448a022

  76. [76]

    2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, doi: 10.1080/00107510802066753 36

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

  77. [77]

    1998, Journal of Physics Condensed Matter, 10, 3669, doi: 10.1088/0953-8984/10/16/018 Weiner Mansfield, M., Line, M

    Ueda, K., Yanagi, H., Noshiro, R., Hosono, H., & Kawazoe, H. 1998, Journal of Physics Condensed Matter, 10, 3669, doi: 10.1088/0953-8984/10/16/018 Weiner Mansfield, M., Line, M. R., Wardenier, J. P., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4a5f

  78. [78]

    S., Bell, T

    Wiser, L. S., Bell, T. J., Line, M. R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.01800, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.01800

  79. [79]

    L., Zhang, M., et al

    Xue, Q., Bean, J. L., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2682 13

  80. [80]

    2011, A&A, 526, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015219 A1 APPENDIX Table A1.Priors of the free parameters used in the atmospheric retrievals

    Zeidler, S., Posch, T., Mutschke, H., Richter, H., & Wehrhan, O. 2011, A&A, 526, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015219 A1 APPENDIX Table A1.Priors of the free parameters used in the atmospheric retrievals. Parameter Prior Tint [K]U(0,2000) Teq [K]U(0,5000) [γ]U(−2,2) [κIR]U(−4,0) T0 [K]U(500,3000) δP1 U(0,0.8) δP2 U(0,1) δP3 U(0,1) [γ1]U(−4,1) [γ2]U(−4,1)...