Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Strict Limits on Helium Absorption from LHS 1140 b from Four JWST NIRISS Transits

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Four JWST transits of LHS 1140 b show no helium absorption

desk verdict Clean four-epoch null result that robustly rules out the 2024 WINERED helium detection at those epochs; the fixed line-width assumption is the main caveat but the paper acknowledges it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13470 v1 pith:SCJXMUU3 submitted 2026-08-13 astro-ph.EP

Michael Radica This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords ExoplanetsExoplanetatmospheresHeliumabsorptionAtmosphericescapeJWSTNIRISSTransmissionspectroscopyLHS1140bPlanetary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

LHS 1140 b is a habitable-zone planet whose atmosphere is not well constrained; a recent ground-based campaign reported metastable helium absorption in 2024, which would indicate an escaping, helium-rich atmosphere. This paper analyzes four archival JWST NIRISS transits of the planet, spanning December 2023 to July 2026, for the same helium signature. In every visit a flat continuum is preferred over a model with helium absorption, with odds ratios from roughly 4:1 to 12:1 against the helium model, and a helium line with the reported 2024 amplitude and width is rejected with odds ratios from 300:1 up to 86,000:1. Because none of the JWST transits occurred at the same time as the 2024 detection, the work does not refute that detection; instead it places strict upper limits of 350–550 ppm on any helium line at the four observed epochs. The paper also finds the star's photosphere and surface-heterogeneity parameters consistent across five visits spanning about 2.5 years.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the unresolved 1.083 µm metastable helium triplet seen through NIRISS/SOSS at $R\approx600$, where the line appears in only one or two spectral channels. The paper treats the line as a Gaussian with its width fixed to 18 Å (the 2024 ground-based line convolved to SOSS resolution) and uses nested-sampling evidence to compare a flat continuum, a Gaussian with free amplitude, and a Gaussian with amplitude fixed to the reported 2024 value. Injection-recovery tests then map the Bayes factor as a function of injected amplitude, converting the data's preference into quantitative upper limits. The photometric stability of JWST, rather than spectral resolution, is what gives these limits sensitivity.

What would settle it

Observe a high-resolution ground-based spectrum of LHS 1140 b during one of the same epochs as these JWST transits (or re-analyze contemporaneous archival data). If a helium line at the roughly 0.7–1.1% level were present while the NIRISS spectrum remains flat at 1.083 µm under the assumed width, the width assumption would be falsified; if both datasets show no helium, the limits are confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that at every JWST epoch observed, the transmission spectrum of LHS 1140 b near 1.083 µm is consistent with a featureless continuum and inconsistent with a strong metastable helium line. The paper models the unresolved helium triplet as a Gaussian fixed at 18 Å full width at half maximum and compares flat, free-amplitude, and fixed-amplitude models with nested-sampling evidence. The flat model wins in all four visits, with log-Bayes factors against free helium of 1.36–2.45, and against a helium line fixed to the 2024 ground-based amplitude of about 589 ppm of 5.69–11.36. Injection-recovery tests place 100:1-odds upper limits of 350–550 ppm at the SOSS resolution, corresponding to roughly 0.7–1.1% line depths at high resolution, comparable to the 0.6% upper limit from the 2025 ground-based non-detection. The paper also claims that the absolute out-of-transit stellar spectra are consistent across four planet-b transits and one planet-c transit, with no evidence for changes in photospheric temperature or spot and facula fractions.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted odds ratios and upper limits assume that any real helium absorption would have the same 18 Å width as the 2024 ground-based detection after smoothing to JWST's low resolution; a line with a very different width would evade these limits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reported 2024 helium detection and the four JWST non-detections can coexist only if helium escape is time-variable or was absent at the JWST epochs; the paper does not claim to refute the detection.
  • The 100:1 upper limits of 350–550 ppm at the SOSS resolution correspond to about 0.7–1.1% at a resolving power of roughly 68,000, comparable to the 0.6% upper limit from the 2025 ground-based non-detection.
  • A flat continuum is the preferred model for all four visits, so the data do not require any helium absorption at the 1.083 µm triplet.
  • The five visits show consistent photosphere and heterogeneity parameters, so these data do not reveal changes in stellar surface properties across the roughly 2.5-year baseline.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If helium escape from LHS 1140 b is genuinely variable, the fact that all four JWST epochs, which bracket the 2024 detection in time, show no helium suggests the detectable high-escape state is uncommon; a coordinated ground-and-space campaign observing the same transit would test this directly.
  • The stellar fits infer a hot component roughly 3000 K above the photosphere, far hotter than the warm heterogeneities previously deduced from transit light source modeling; fitting with spot-specific and facula-specific model spectra rather than temperature perturbations would clarify whether this is physical or a model artifact.
  • Because the quoted limits depend on the assumed 18 Å line width, an extension that marginalizes over line width in the injection-recovery tests would show how much weaker the constraints become for broader or narrower helium lines.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes four archival JWST NIRISS/SOSS transits of LHS 1140 b, spanning December 2023 to July 2026, to search for metastable helium (1.083 µm) absorption. The authors reduce the data with a custom pipeline, fit white-light and pixel-level light curves, and construct transmission spectra. They perform Bayesian model comparison between a flat continuum, a continuum plus a free-amplitude Gaussian He line (with FWHM fixed to 18 Å, corresponding to the 2024 WINERED detection convolved to SOSS resolution), and a continuum plus a Gaussian with both amplitude and width fixed to that detection. They find that all four visits disfavor the presence of He absorption over a flat continuum, with log-Bayes factors of 1.36–2.45 (odds 3.9:1–11.6:1), and strongly rule out the 2024-equivalent signal, with log-Bayes factors of 5.69–11.36 (odds ~300:1–8.6×10^4:1). Injection-recovery tests yield upper limits on the He line amplitude of 350–550 ppm at SOSS resolution for the four visits. In a separate analysis, the authors fit the out-of-transit stellar spectra from these visits plus one additional planet-c transit, using multi-component NewEra models, and find consistent photospheric and heterogeneity parameters across all five epochs. The paper concludes that no He escape is detected and places strict limits that complement the ground-based WINERED results.

Significance. If the results stand, this work provides valuable multi-epoch upper limits on He escape from LHS 1140 b, directly complementing the 2024 WINERED detection and 2025 non-detection by Cherubim et al. It demonstrates that JWST/NIRISS SOSS, despite its low spectral resolution, can constrain a narrow He line nearly as well as ground-based high-resolution spectroscopy, leveraging its photometric stability. The analysis is technically careful: it uses standard data-reduction practices, nested sampling for model comparison, injection-recovery sensitivity tests, and explicit checks of systematics (e.g., spot crossings, a potential flare, and a serendipitous planet-c transit). The stellar spectral fits, while secondary, provide a useful consistency check over a 2.5-year baseline. The main caveats—that the He line width is fixed to the 2024 WINERED value and that the four JWST transits are not contemporaneous with the 2024 detection—are acknowledged in the text. The central claim that the 2024-equivalent He signal is ruled out is robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Table 2] The free-amplitude Gaussian He model fixes the line width to 18 Å but leaves the amplitude free; however, the prior on that amplitude is never specified in the text or in Table 2. The Bayesian evidence (and hence the reported odds ratios of 3.9–11.6:1 for the disfavoring claim) depends directly on this prior's width and shape. Please state the prior explicitly and, ideally, test the sensitivity of the Bayes factors to a broader or narrower prior range. Without this, the model comparison is not fully reproducible.
  2. [§3 and §5] The quoted upper limits on the He amplitude are internally inconsistent between Sections 3 and 5. Section 3 reports limits of 350, 550, 420, and 380 ppm for Visits 1–4, with corresponding WINERED-resolution amplitudes of 0.72%, 1.15%, 0.88%, and 0.79%. Section 5 reports limits of 350, 500, 420, and 380 ppm, with corresponding amplitudes 0.68%, 1.07%, 0.81%, and 0.74%. At least one of these sets contains errors; the authors should correct the numbers and verify the ppm-to-percent conversion.
  3. [§3 and abstract] The claim that the data 'disfavour the presence of He absorption in general' and the 'strict limits' quoted in the abstract and summary are conditioned on the assumed 18 Å line width. The text acknowledges this in Section 5, but the abstract and the final summary present the limits without that qualifier. Since a broader He line (e.g., from a different outflow geometry) would have a lower peak amplitude per resolution element and would be less constrained by the present analysis, I recommend stating explicitly in the abstract and conclusions that the limits apply to He lines with a width comparable to the 2024 WINERED detection.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo: 'herterogeneity' should be 'heterogeneity' in the abstract and in the corresponding sentence in Section 4.
  2. [§1] The phrase 'the revisement of its mass' should read 'the revision of its mass'.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The legend label 'He (WINERED Amp)' is not defined in the caption; please define it as the model with both amplitude and width fixed to the 2024 WINERED detection.
  4. [Table 1] The caption says 'Parameter Prior Range' but the prior distributions for some parameters (e.g., u1, u2) are not fully described; the table says 'Prior Range' but the entries are only ranges, not the exact prior families (e.g., uniform vs Gaussian). Please clarify.
  5. [§2.1] When describing the potential flare in Visit 4, the text says 'there is no clear structure in the Hα light curves' but does not state whether the Hα data were examined in the same way as the white light; a brief clarification of the diagnostic used would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the He limits are derived from external-detection hypothesis tests and standard injection-recovery sensitivity analyses, with the width assumption explicitly acknowledged.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a null result: no He absorption is detected in four JWST NIRISS transits. The model comparison in Section 3 tests a flat continuum against Gaussian He models whose amplitude and width are taken from the external Cherubim et al. (2026) WINERED detection (Table 2), so the ruled-out signal is an externally defined hypothesis rather than a quantity fitted from the same data. The injection-recovery tests (Figure 3) inject synthetic lines into the same spectra to measure each visit's sensitivity, which is a standard and non-circular sensitivity analysis. The fixed 18 Angstrom FWHM assumption is explicitly acknowledged in Section 5 as a limitation, not silently equated to the conclusion. Self-citations to the author's reduction and fitting packages (exoTEDRF, exoTHOMF, exoUPRF) are methodological citations to publicly released code, and the physical conclusion does not depend on accepting those packages' outputs on faith; the analysis is reproducible from the public JWST data. No derivation step reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no load-bearing claim is supported only by a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a non-detection; no new particles or physical mechanisms are invoked. The main assumptions are modeling choices for the He line shape and stellar spectra, plus the chosen threshold for defining upper limits.

free parameters (6)
  • Gaussian He amplitude (free-amp model, per visit) = 66, 127, 103, 81 ppm for Visits 1-4
    Best-fit amplitudes in the free-amplitude He model; used to show data prefer zero amplitude, but with large uncertainties.
  • He line FWHM = 18 Å (fixed)
    Fixed to the 2024 WINERED detection width convolved to SOSS resolution; anchors the ruled-out model and injection-recovery limits.
  • Injection-recovery detection threshold = lnB = 4.61 (odds 100:1)
    Chosen by hand as the threshold for upper limits; standard but arbitrary.
  • White-light systematics (linear slope, error inflation, per visit) = not tabulated; fitted per visit
    Nuisance parameters in white light and pixel-level fits; account for instrumental trends.
  • Spot crossing Gaussian parameters (Visits 2 and 4) = amplitude, width, position; not tabulated
    Free parameters in white-light fits to model stellar activity; fixed or prior-constrained in spectrophotometric fits.
  • Stellar surface parameters (T_phot, T_cold, f_cold, T_hot, f_hot, flux scale, error inflation) = T_phot ~2900 K, T_cold ~2400-2600 K, f_cold ~0.1, T_hot ~5750-6250 K, f_hot ~0.07
    Fitted in the stellar spectrum analysis (Section 4); secondary to the He claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The unresolved He triplet can be modeled as a single Gaussian at NIRISS/SOSS resolution (R~600).
    Used for all He models and injection-recovery tests in Section 3; follows prior low-resolution He searches (Fu et al. 2022; Ahrer et al. 2025).
  • domain assumption Power-2 limb-darkening law with Gaussian priors centered on ExoTiC-LD predictions.
    Applied in pixel-level light curve fits in Section 2.1; standard in JWST transmission spectroscopy.
  • domain assumption NewEra stellar atmosphere models are sufficiently accurate for relative comparisons of stellar surface properties across visits.
    The authors explicitly caution that absolute M dwarf model spectra are poor (Section 4) but rely on relative consistency across visits.
  • standard math Sellke et al. (2001) approximation converts log-Bayes factors to Gaussian sigma values.
    Used in Sections 3 and 5 to translate odds ratios to sigma levels.
  • domain assumption The batman transit model with a circular orbit and fixed period (24.73723 d) accurately represents the transit shape.
    White light fits in Section 2.1; prior system parameters from Cadieux et al. 2024.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strict Limits on Helium Absorption from LHS 1140 b from Four JWST NIRISS Transits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SCJXMUU3

@misc{pith2026260813470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strict Limits on Helium Absorption from LHS 1140 b from Four JWST NIRISS Transits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SCJXMUU3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13470}
}
abstract

Orbiting in the habitable zone of its host star, the 1.7 $R_\oplus$, 5.6 $M_\oplus$ planet LHS 1140 b is a target of great interest. Recently Cherubim et al. (2026) published a detection of metastable He escaping from the atmosphere of LHS 1140 b, simultaneously providing the first concrete inference of an atmosphere on this planet and indicating that the atmosphere is He-rich and H-poor as would be expected due to Gyrs of fractionated mass loss. In this work, we analyze four archival transits of LHS 1140 b, spanning Dec 2023 to Jul 2026, taken with the NIRISS instrument on JWST, for evidence of He absorption. Each of the four visits disfavours the presence of He absorption compared to a flat continuum with odds ratios ranging from 3.9--11.6:1. He absorption with an amplitude and width equivalent to that observed by Cherubim et al. (2026) is strongly ruled out by the data with odds ratios from 300--8.6$\times$10$^4$:1 compared to a flat continuum --- though it should be noted that none of the JWST transits are contemporaneous with the Cherubim et al. (2026) detection. We also fit the absolute out-of-transit stellar spectra from these four visits, as well as an additional JWST NIRISS transit of planet c, to search for evidence of stellar variability, but find consistent photosphere and herterogeneity parameters in all five datasets. In all, our work provides a set of strict limits on He escape from LHS 1140 b that will be valuable to future studies into the nature and evolution of this intriguing world.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13470 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LHS 1140 b NIRISS/SOSS white light curves for each of the four visits. White light curves are constructed using the first SOSS spectral order (0.85–2.85 µm). Data are shown in coloured points and best-fitting transit models in black. The lower panels in each quadrant shows the residuals to the best fitting model. A serendipitous double-transit of planet c can be seen during the second visit. Grey points in Visit 4 s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Transmission spectra of LHS 1140 b for each of the four visits focused on wavelengths around the 1.083 µm He triplet (which is unresolved at the spectral resolution of NIRISS/SOSS; R∼600). Pixel-level transit depths (i.e., one transit depth per pixel column on the detector) are shown in black. Posterior draws for several model fits are shown with coloured lines: a flat continuum with no absorption lines (blue); a fl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results of He absorption injection-recovery tests for each of the four visits. Larger values of the Bayes factor (B) indicate stronger rejections of the He absorption model in favour of a flat continuum. To assess the limits that each transit can place on the presence of He absorption, we perform a series of injection-recovery tests. We fit a flat continuum + Gaus￾sian He model to each transmission spectrum, keeping… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of stellar model fits to the out-of-transit stellar spectra. Top: Flux calibrated order 1 stellar spectra for the four LHS 1140 b visits and one LHS 1140 c are shown in coloured points and the best-fitting NewEra stellar model in black. In grey is a NewEra mode…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, ApJL, 985, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add010

    Ahrer, E.-M., Radica, M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 985, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add010

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add010 2025

  2. [2]

    2023, PASP, 135, 075001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3

    Albert, L., Lafreni` ere, D., Ren´ e, D., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 075001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd7a3 2023

  3. [3]

    2025, Nat Commun, 16, 10822, doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-66628-5 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Allart, R., Coulombe, L.-P., Carteret, Y., et al. 2025, Nat Commun, 16, 10822, doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-66628-5 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

    doi:10.1038/s41467-025-66628-5 2025

  4. [4]

    2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.12.3 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8404029

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.12.3 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8404029

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.8404029 2023

  5. [5]

    2024, ApJL, 960, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1691

    Cadieux, C., Plotnykov, M., Doyon, R., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1691

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1691 2024

  6. [6]

    J., et al

    Cadieux, C., Doyon, R., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5afa

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5afa 2024

  7. [7]

    J., et al

    Cherubim, C., Wordsworth, R., Bower, D. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbca9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbca9 2025

  8. [8]

    2026, Science, eaea9708, doi: 10.1126/science.aea9708

    Cherubim, C., Vissapragada, S., Cunningham, T., et al. 2026, Science, eaea9708, doi: 10.1126/science.aea9708

    doi:10.1126/science.aea9708 2026

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    2022, A&A, 664, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243827

    Claret, A., & Southworth, J. 2022, A&A, 664, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243827

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, ApJL, 968, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204

    Damiano, M., Bello-Arufe, A., Yang, J., & Hu, R. 2024, ApJL, 968, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Dittmann, J., & Kempton, E. M.-R. 2020, AJ, 160, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab935f

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Irwin, J

    Dittmann, J. A., Irwin, J. M., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2017, Nature, 544, 333, doi: 10.1038/nature22055 Dos Santos, L. A., Alam, M. K., Espinoza, N., &

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, AJ, 165, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accf10

    Vissapragada, S. 2023, AJ, 165, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accf10

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Hutchings, J

    Doyon, R., Willott, C. J., Hutchings, J. B., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 098001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd41b 10Radica et al

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, AJ, 161, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc6a5

    Edwards, B., Changeat, Q., Mori, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc6a5

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    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

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Radica, M., et al

    Fournier-Tondreau, M., MacDonald, R. J., Radica, M., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 3354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3813

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    K., et al

    Fu, G., Espinoza, N., Sing, D. K., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9977

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    I., & Seager, S

    Glidden, A., Witzke, V., Shapiro, A. I., & Seager, S. 2026, ApJL, 997, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae3137

    2026 doi

  12. [20]

    Grant, D., & Wakeford, H. R. 2024, JOSS, 9, 6816, doi: 10.21105/joss.06816

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    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

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    H., Barman, T., Baron, E., Aufdenberg, J

    Hauschildt, P. H., Barman, T., Baron, E., Aufdenberg, J. P., & Schweitzer, A. 2025, A&A, 698, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554171

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    1997, A&A, 327, 199

    Hestroffer, D. 1997, A&A, 327, 199

    1997

  16. [24]

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

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acabc2

    Gharib-Nezhad, E. 2023, ApJ, 944, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acabc2

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    S., & Ford, E

    Kite, E. S., & Ford, E. B. 2018, ApJ, 864, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6e0

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    Kreidberg, L. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 258, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02710-8

    Krishnamurthy, V., Carteret, Y., Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 258, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02710-8

    2026 doi

  21. [29]

    2020, A&A, 642, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038922

    Lillo-Box, J., Figueira, P., Leleu, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038922

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

    Lim, O., Benneke, B., Doyon, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., et al

    Mansfield, M., Bean, J. L., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf166

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac77f9

    Charbonneau, D. 2022, ApJ, 935, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac77f9

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2025, An empirical determination of the Cosmic Shoreline, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.12865

    Meni-Gallardo, P., & Pall´ e, E. 2025, An empirical determination of the Cosmic Shoreline, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.12865

    2025 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    A., Astudillo-Defru, N., et al

    Ment, K., Dittmann, J. A., Astudillo-Defru, N., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf1b1

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    E., Stevenson, K

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

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Nixon, M

    Murphy, M. M., Nixon, M. C., Feinstein, A. D., et al. 2026, AJ, 172, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae7a32

    2026 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Garcia, L., Rackham, B

    Murray, C. A., Garcia, L., Rackham, B. V., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1003, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae6fb6 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A. 2019, ApJ, 881, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f7f Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hirata, C. M. 2018, ApJ, 855, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaada9

    2026 doi

  30. [38]

    K., Charbonneau, D., & Vanderburg, A

    Pass, E. K., Charbonneau, D., & Vanderburg, A. 2025, ApJL, 986, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adda39

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    A., & Espinoza, N

    Patel, J. A., & Espinoza, N. 2022, AJ, 163, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5f55 P´ erez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, ApJL, 974, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f00

    Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Benneke, B., Radica, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f00

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf207

    Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Benneke, B., Turbet, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf207

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

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

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

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

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

    Rackham, B. V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M. S. 2019, AJ, 157, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf892

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, JOSS, 9, 6898, doi: 10.21105/joss.06898

    Radica, M. 2024, JOSS, 9, 6898, doi: 10.21105/joss.06898

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, radicamc/exoUPRF: v1.1.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18749416

    Radica, M. 2024, radicamc/exoUPRF: v1.1.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18749416

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2026, radicamc/exoTHOMF: v1.0.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19389706

    Radica, M. 2026, radicamc/exoTHOMF: v1.0.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19389706

    2026 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, PASP, 134, 104502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9430

    Radica, M., Albert, L., Taylor, J., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 104502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9430

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

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

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

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

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

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

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    2025, ApJL, 979, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada381

    Radica, M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Taylor, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada381

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    2026, AJ, 171, 314, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae5b9f

    Radica, M., Taylor, J., Rotman, Y., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 314, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae5b9f

    2026 doi

  44. [52]

    2025, Nat Astron, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02723-3

    Roy, P.-A., Benneke, B., Fournier-Tondreau, M., et al. 2025, Nat Astron, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02723-3

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    J., & Berger, J

    Sellke, T., Bayarri, M. J., & Berger, J. O. 2001, The American Statistician, 55, 62, doi: 10.1198/000313001300339950

    2001 doi

  46. [54]

    I., Seager, S., Solanki, S

    Shapiro, A. I., Seager, S., Solanki, S. K., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.19854, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.19854

    2026 doi arXiv

  47. [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

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278 Limits on LHS 1140bHelium with SOSS11

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    J., & Catling, D

    Zahnle, K. J., & Catling, D. C. 2017, ApJ, 843, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7846

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.