Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 72 references

Nitrogen chemistry of hycean worlds on the example of K2-18b

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The nitrogen source in K2-18b's atmosphere determines whether photochemistry produces detectable ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and related compounds, and whether the planet fits the hycean or mini-Neptune picture.

desk verdict A useful new tracer logic for N2 vs NH3 sources in sub-Neptunes, but the quantitative 'trace' prediction leans on an unmodeled upper atmosphere and a vague detection threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03455 v1 pith:36OMHHFE submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.EP

Maja W. Radecka , Paul B. Rimmer This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetatmospheresphotochemistryK2-18bhyceanworldsnitrogencycleammoniahydrogencyanidebiosignatures
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

This paper asks whether future telescopes can tell how much nitrogen—and in what form—exists on K2-18b, a sub-Neptune-sized planet whose hydrogen atmosphere already showed methane and carbon dioxide but no nitrogen compounds. Since molecular nitrogen (N2) is nearly invisible to transmission spectroscopy, the authors simulate the planet's photochemistry to predict the abundances of nitrogen-bearing products such as ammonia (NH3), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and cyanoacetylene (HC3N) under different assumptions. Their central result is that the source gas matters: if the bulk nitrogen is N2, photochemistry yields only trace, undetectable amounts of these species, whereas if ammonia is the main nitrogen source, NH3, methylamine (CH5N), and HCN approach the ~1 ppm detection range. They also find that equilibrium surface chemistry cannot reproduce the measured CO2 abundance, arguing against the simplest mini-Neptune interpretation, and that ethane production could someday serve as a proxy for dimethyl sulfide. The practical payoff is a set of predictions that can be tested with JWST.

What carries the argument

The ARGO 1D photochemistry–diffusion code (Rimmer & Helling 2016), with the 6623-reaction Stand-2023May chemical network, carries the calculation. It tracks a gas parcel along a prescribed pressure–temperature profile, solving continuity equations for each species with eddy diffusion, photolysis, and ion–neutral reactions until convergence. Two pathways are pivotal: N2 feeds an interstellar-like ion–neutral chain ending in NH3; NH3 photolysis feeds CH3 + NH2 → CH5N and HCN formation. Eddy-diffusion profiles (constant Kzz, a 'Kzz trap', and rising Kzz) govern how far photoproducts reach before destruction.

What would settle it

A JWST observation that measures NH3, HCN, or CH5N in K2-18b's transmission spectrum at or above the ~1 ppm level would contradict the N2-dominant scenario; alternatively, a firm upper limit below ~1 ppm on all three molecules would support it. Independently, measuring the upper-atmosphere temperature profile (e.g., via H2 UV transit or emission) would test the isothermal extrapolation that the N2 pathway depends on.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The load-bearing claim: whether K2-18b's nitrogen is N2 or NH3 decides whether any nitrogen compound is observable. With N2 alone (10 ppm–10%), photochemistry yields only trace NH3, HCN, HC3N—far below the ~1 ppm detection threshold in the JWST-accessible pressure range. With ammonia as the main nitrogen carrier, NH3, CH5N, and HCN approach detectable abundances. HC3N and NO give similar abundances in both cases and are poor source tracers. Equilibrium surface chemistry yields CO2 below ~1 ppb, orders of magnitude under the JWST-retrieved ~1.8%, so K2-18b is unlikely to be a typical mini-Neptune. Ethane forms abundantly, making it a potential future proxy for DMS.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the upper atmosphere behaves as a cold isothermal layer up to 10^-10 bar, and the key N2-to-ammonia photochemical route operates only inside that extrapolated region; if the real upper atmosphere is hotter or differently mixed, that route—and with it the predicted nitrogen abundances—could change substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New detections of NH3, HCN, or CH5N in K2-18b's transmission spectrum would indicate ammonia, not N2, is the bulk nitrogen source.
  • A non-detection of these molecules cannot be used to conclude nitrogen is absent; N2-rich atmospheres hide their nitrogen.
  • HC3N and NO should not be used to infer the nitrogen source, because their abundances are nearly identical in both scenarios.
  • If the N2 case holds, photochemistry alone cannot supply the fixed nitrogen needed for prebiotic chemistry on the surface; impacts, lightning, or volcanism would be required.
  • The underprediction of CO2 by equilibrium chemistry, together with ammonia non-detection, strengthens the case that K2-18b is a hycean or magma-ocean world rather than a typical mini-Neptune.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The N2-case prediction depends on the isothermal extrapolation above 10^-5 bar: the ion–neutral ammonia pathway lives entirely in that assumed layer, so a realistic thermosphere with different temperatures or transport could change predicted trace abundances in either direction.
  • The same N2-vs-NH3 bifurcation likely applies to other H2-dominated temperate sub-Neptunes, though each target would need its own pressure–temperature profile and UV flux to fix the detectable thresholds.
  • Because water vapor suppresses nitrile production by about an order of magnitude, a wetter-than-assumed stratosphere on K2-18b would make the N2 case even harder to observe, not easier.
  • An ethane excess over the model's baseline is consistent with the DMS hypothesis but not proof of it; other methyl-radical sources could produce the same signal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper uses the ARGO 1D photochemistry–diffusion model with the Stand-2023May chemical network to study nitrogen chemistry in a hycean, H2-dominated atmosphere for K2-18b. The reference case adopts JWST-retrieved CO2 and CH4 abundances; N2 is then added from 10 ppm to 10%, under different Kzz profiles and dry/wet conditions, and compared with a 100x solar metallicity equilibrium case in which NH3 is the dominant nitrogen carrier. Mean mixing ratios are computed for the whole atmosphere and for the 10^-5–10^-2 bar region treated as spectroscopically accessible. The central claims are: (i) if N2 is the bulk nitrogen reservoir, photochemistry produces only trace NH3, HCN, and HC3N, whereas an NH3 source produces abundances approaching the ~1 ppm detectability range; (ii) HC3N and NO are poor discriminators between the two nitrogen sources; (iii) surface chemical equilibrium underpredicts CO2 relative to retrieval, weakening the mini-Neptune interpretation; and (iv) C2H6 is produced significantly and could serve as a DMS proxy.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a practical route to infer the dominant atmospheric nitrogen reservoir on H2-rich sub-Neptunes from transmission spectroscopy, and it strengthens the hycean interpretation of K2-18b. The systematic parameter sweeps (N2 abundance, Kzz profiles, dry/wet cases), the explicit reaction-pathway analysis, and the honest statement of model limitations are strengths. The predictions are genuine forward-model outputs rather than being defined by the retrieved inputs, so there is no circularity at the level of the chemical network. However, the quantitative trace-vs-detectable conclusion rests on the treatment of the unobserved upper atmosphere and on a heuristic 1 ppm mixing-ratio threshold, so the significance is conditional on those two points being tested or clearly qualified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.5, §3.2.1, §4] The N2 photochemical production of NH3 peaks at 10^-6–10^-8 bar, entirely inside the isothermally extrapolated 10^-5–10^-10 bar region (Section 2.5). The dominant NH3 route is the ion-neutral chain N+ + H2 → NH+ + H → ... → NH4+ + e- → NH3, which is described as interstellar-like and then conceded in Section 4: 'It is unclear how likely it is for these reactions to actually occur in the atmosphere... In reality, there should be a thermosphere... conditions in the upper atmosphere would be very different from the interstellar medium.' Because this region is exactly where the discriminating chemistry is computed, a thermosphere with different T, H2 dissociation, ionization balance, or Kzz could plausibly change the N2 photochemical yields of NH3/HCN by orders of magnitude. Please add explicit sensitivity tests (e.g., a warmer upper atmosphere, reduced ionization, or a range of upper-level
  2. [§4, Fig. 10] Detectability is evaluated against a fixed mean mixing-ratio threshold ('around 1 ppm'), not against synthetic spectra or noise calculations. The text and the Figure 10 caption even disagree on the threshold (10^-6 vs 10^-5). Since the paper's headline statement is that NH3, CH5N, and HCN 'approach detectable range,' a fixed mixing ratio is not sufficient: line strengths, JWST bandpass, cloud/haze opacity, and retrieval sensitivity govern detectability. Please add forward-modeled transmission spectra or retrieval-like estimates for representative N2 and NH3 cases, or reframe the claims as mixing-ratio predictions rather than detectability predictions.
  3. [§3.2, Fig. 9, Tables 2–3] The N2-vs-NH3 comparison changes not only the nitrogen source but the full bulk composition. The N2 runs are dry H2-CO2-CH4 mixtures, whereas the NH3 case is a 100x solar equilibrium mixture with ~10% H2O, ~6% CH4, H2S, and no CO2 input. The resulting differences in NH3, HCN, and CH5N may be driven by H2O/OH abundance, C/O ratio, or metallicity rather than by the N2-vs-NH3 distinction itself. A controlled comparison that keeps the C/H/O background fixed while swapping N2 for NH3 would directly support the tracer claim; at minimum, the current attribution should be qualified.
  4. [§4, Fig. C1] The conclusion that equilibrium chemistry cannot explain the observed CO2 is based on a single 100x solar FastChem calculation at the assumed p-T profile. Thermochemical CO2 abundances are extremely sensitive to C/O ratio, metallicity, and deep temperature. Before concluding that K2-18b is 'not a typical sub-Neptune,' a C/O or p-T sensitivity grid (or a direct comparison with the retrieval-based models of Wogan et al. 2024) is needed. As written, the CO2 underprediction is a useful inconsistency but not yet a robust planetary-class discriminant.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2.4] The sentence 'Large optical depth means that light gets transmitted far into the atmosphere, while small optical depth means that the atmosphere is very hazy and absorbs light quickly' appears physically backwards. Large optical depth implies stronger absorption/attenuation and shallower photon penetration; please clarify the intended meaning.
  2. [Throughout] Editorial: 'specie' should be 'species'; 'less molecules' should be 'fewer molecules'; the capitalization of 'Eddy Diffusion coefficient' is inconsistent.
  3. [§2.1 / Data availability] The Stand-2023May chemical network is said to be given in the supplementary material, but the Data Availability section only states that data are available upon request. Please confirm that the full network and run inputs are archived or provide a repository link.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: forward-model predictions are not defined by their inputs; the N2/NH3 discriminant, the CO2 underprediction, and the tracer rankings are independent computed outputs.

full rationale

The central claims of this paper are forward-model outputs, not quantities defined in terms of the fitted inputs. The reference sample fixes CO2 and CH4 to JWST-retrieved values, but the nitrogen-bearing predictions (NH3, HCN, CH5N, HC3N, NO) are computed by the ARGO photochemical-diffusion code from a 6623-reaction network; they are not read off from the input mixing ratios. Varying N2 from 10 ppm to 10% and comparing with the NH3-dominated 100x solar metallicity case is a parameter study, not a fit recycled as a prediction. The 100x solar sample is initialized from FastChem equilibrium, yet the conclusion that NH3, CH5N, and HCN approach detectable range follows from the modeled photochemistry, not from the initial NH3 abundance by construction. Similarly, the CO2 underprediction is an independent FastChem equilibrium calculation compared against observed JWST values; it is a genuine model-data comparison. The isothermal extrapolation of the p-T profile above 10^-5 bar (Section 2.5) and the paper's own caveat that the ion-neutral NH3 production path 'is unclear how likely it is for these reactions to actually occur' are stated limitations that affect robustness, but they do not make the derivation circular: the model does not assume the trace N2 outcome, it computes it under a stated approximation. Self-citations to ARGO (Rimmer & Helling 2016) and the Stand-2023May network are methodological provenance for a code and network that are described and used as tools, not an unverified uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggled in to force the result. No equation-level reduction of prediction to input was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claims rest on a small set of hand-chosen inputs: the observed CO2/CH4 boundary abundances, the N2 grid, and the Kzz profiles. No new physical entities are introduced. The principal unproven premises are the accuracy/completeness of the 6623-reaction network and the isothermal p-T extrapolation in the region where most N2 photochemistry is computed.

free parameters (4)
  • N2 initial mixing ratio sweep = 10 ppm, 100 ppm, 0.1%, 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% (Samples G-A)
    Vary the bulk nitrogen inventory from trace to 10% to test sensitivity; not fitted, but the grid defines the scope of the central claim.
  • Kzz Eddy diffusion coefficient = 10^5, 10^6, 10^7, 10^8, 10^9 cm2/s plus Kzz-trap profile (10^3 in trap, 10^5 outside)
    Chosen by hand from literature estimates (Charnay et al. 2018) and varied to check sensitivity; affects vertical transport of photochemical products and the detectability conclusions.
  • Detection threshold = ~1 ppm mixing ratio
    The paper judges 'detectable range' against ~1 ppm without generating synthetic spectra; this threshold is imposed by the authors and directly determines which species are called trace vs near-detectable.
  • Reference boundary mixing ratios H2/CO2/CH4 = 97.325% / 1.768% / 0.907%
    Taken from JWST retrieval (Madhusudhan et al. 2023a) and used as fixed boundary inputs for the reference sample; not fitted here but the resulting conclusions inherit the accuracy of that retrieval.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ARGO 1D photochemistry-diffusion model with Stand-2023May network (6623 reactions) accurately represents K2-18b chemistry.
    The paper relies on this network for all product abundances; network completeness/rate uncertainties are not independently assessed here (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Isothermal extrapolation of the p-T profile from 10^-5 bar to 10^-10 bar is a valid representation of the upper atmosphere.
    Section 2.5; the key ion-neutral ammonia pathway in the N2 case is active mainly in this extrapolated region, and Discussion admits the actual conditions there are unknown.
  • domain assumption Dry stratosphere (water below condensation) matches JWST non-detection of H2O.
    Section 2.2; this assumption maximizes nitrogen-species abundances and therefore brackets the N2 trace conclusion as an upper bound.
  • domain assumption 100x solar metallicity equilibrium computed with FastChem represents the 'typical sub-Neptune / mini-Neptune' baseline.
    Section 3.2.2; the conclusion that equilibrium underpredicts CO2 depends on this single metallicity choice; other metallicities/C/O ratios are not tested.
  • domain assumption H2-H2 collision-induced absorption and rainout of water are neglected.
    Discussion section 4 states CIA is not considered and the 100x solar sample carries H2O into the stratosphere 'could be due to rain out not being implemented'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nitrogen chemistry of hycean worlds on the example of K2-18b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/36OMHHFE

@misc{pith2026250903455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nitrogen chemistry of hycean worlds on the example of K2-18b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/36OMHHFE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03455}
}
read the original abstract

A recent observation of the exoplanet K2-18b sparked interest among scientists - large amounts of carbon dioxide and methane were detected in an H2-rich background atmosphere. If the planet is a hycean world (liquid water ocean + hydrogen-dominated atmosphere), it could be habitable under certain conditions. The presence of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen was already confirmed, however, there was no detection of nitrogen or its compounds. Molecular nitrogen is difficult to detect directly. This study concentrates on possible photochemical products of N2 such as HCN, NH3 and HC3N. We set approximate limits on the amount of nitrogen bearing species by varying atmospheric parameters, such as the Eddy Diffusion coefficient and the amount of N2 present from 10 ppm to 10%. If the bulk nitrogen-containing gas in the atmosphere is N2, photochemistry produces only trace amounts of the aforementioned species. However, if ammonia is the main source of nitrogen, then the quantities of NH3, CH5N and HCN approach detectable range. HC3N and NO are bad tracers of the nitrogen source in the atmosphere, because they are produced in similar amounts in all tested scenarios. Assuming equilibrium chemistry at the surface of K2-18b results in underprediction of CO2 abundance. This result combined with the non-detection of ammonia by JWST suggests the planet is not a typical sub-Neptune, but could be indeed a hycean world or magma ocean planet. We also found that C2H6 is produced in significant amounts - if it is detected in the future, it could serve as a proxy for DMS presence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03455 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stellar flux of GJ-176 (violet) and GJ-436 (orange) at different wavelengths in the UV range. Data taken from MUSCLES Treasury Survey (France et al. (2016), Youngblood et al. (2016), Loyd et al. (2016)). The spectrum of GJ-176 was used for all measurements. intensity of light at a given height: 𝐼𝜆,𝑧 = 𝐼𝜆,∞ exp  − 𝜏𝜆  , (3) 𝜏𝜆,𝑧 = ∫ 𝑇𝑂𝐴 𝑧 1 cos 𝜃 ∑︁ 𝑖 𝜎𝜆,𝑖 𝜒𝑖(𝑧)𝑛(𝑧) 𝑑𝑧 (4) where 𝜏 is the optical depth of the air co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pressure (bar) at which optical depth, 𝜏 (𝜆) = 1, as a function of wavelength (Å). For the atmosphere described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pressure [bar] against temperature [K] on K2-18b (courtesy of Prof. N. Madhusudhan). Isothermal extrapolation of this profile starts from 10−5 bar and continues until 10−10 bar. 2.6 Eddy Diffusion Mixing through Eddy Diffusion is the main way for particle transport in the atmosphere, as molecular diffusion is 5-10 orders of magnitude slower, therefore choosing the correct diffusion parameter (𝐾𝑧𝑧 ) is crucial. There… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Height profile for 𝐾𝑧𝑧 trap reference sample - initially, there were only 3 molecules present - H2 , CO2 , CH4 , the rest was created through chemical reactions from Stand2023 (Rimmer & Helling (2016)). The ’bump’ around p = 10−5 bar is due to Eddy Diffusion profile fo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reaction rates for H2O production through H2 + OH → H2O + H (solid line) and destruction through H2O + ℎ𝜈 → OH + H (dashed line) in the reference sample with 𝐾𝑧𝑧 trap. H + H → H2 Net: 2 CH4 + ℎ𝜈 → C2H4 + 2 H2 . OH radicals combine with methane to produce methyl radical…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of samples with nitrogen sources dominated by N2 and NH3 . On the left panel, there are height profiles for 6 different nitrogen species: NH3 , HCN, HC3N, N2 , NO and CH5N. On the right panel, there are mean mixing ratios of these compounds in the detectable…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mixing ratio of N bearing compounds versus N2 input for samples with lower Eddy Diffusion coefficients (from the top: 𝐾𝑧𝑧 = 105 cm2 s −1 , 𝐾𝑧𝑧 = 106 cm2 s −1 and 𝐾𝑧𝑧 with ’𝐾𝑧𝑧 trap’). Calculations are restricted to the detectable range of the spectrum (10−5 to 10−2 ba…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Height profile for 𝐾𝑧𝑧 trap sample with 2% of N2 added. For clarity, there are only plotted molecules taking part in the production of nitrogen bearing species, however all the inputs and products from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Main pathways for the destruction (dashed and dotted lines) of ammonia in 100x solar metallicity sample with 𝐾𝑧𝑧 trap. The solid red curve shows the reaction producing NH3 from the destruction of CH5N - reaction dominates at around 10−7 bar. It is the only place in th…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Height profile for 𝐾𝑧𝑧 trap sample with 100x solar metallicity - nitrogen and sulfur bearing species. ’J’ denotes condensed species. production of HCN, leads to a sharp peak in cyanoacetylene (HC3N) around 10−7 bar. This production pathway to HC3N is facilitated throu…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Height profile for 𝐾𝑧𝑧 trap sample with 1% of H2S added. For clarity, there are only plotted molecules taking part in production of sulfur bearing species, however all the inputs and products from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agúndez M., Parmentier V., Venot O., Hersant F., Selsis F., 2014, Agundez 2014-circulation

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    S., Glocer A., Gronoff G., Hebrard E., Danchi W., 2016, @doi [Nature Geoscience] 10.1038/ngeo2719

    Airapetian V. S., Glocer A., Gronoff G., Hebrard E., Danchi W., 2016, @doi [Nature Geoscience] 10.1038/ngeo2719

    doi:10.1038/ngeo2719 2016

  3. [3]

    M., Grevesse N., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 , 653, A141

    Asplund M., Amarsi A. M., Grevesse N., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 , 653, A141

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  4. [4]

    Bangera N., Helling C., Guilluy G., Cubillos P., Fossati L., Giacobbe P., Rimmer P., Kitzmann D., 2025, Kinetic and photochemical disequilibrium in the potentially carbon-rich atmosphere of the warm-Jupiter WASP-69b ( @eprint arXiv 2501.08463 )

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    B., Colón K

    Barclay T., Kostov V. B., Colón K. D., Quintana E. V., Schlieder J. E., Louie D. R., Gilbert E. A., Mullally S. E., 2021, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2824 , 162, 300

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2824 2021

  6. [6]

    Benneke B., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab59dc , 887, L14

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab59dc 2019

  7. [7]

    Blain D., Charnay B., Bézard B., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039072 , 646, A15

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039072 2021

  8. [8]

    D., Mandell A

    Blumenthal S. D., Mandell A. M., Hébrard E., Batalha N. E., Cubillos P. E., Rugheimer S., Wakeford H. R., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9e51 , 853, 138

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9e51 2018

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Borysow A., 1992, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(92)90070-N , 96, 169

    1992 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Aldrich E

    Bridgeman O. C., Aldrich E. W., 1964, @doi [Journal of Heat Transfer] 10.1115/1.3687121 , 86, 279

    1964 doi

  3. [11]

    Charnay B., Bézard B., Baudino J.-L., Bonnefoy M., Boccaletti A., Galicher R., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac7d , 854, 172

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    B., Rimmer P

    Claringbold A. B., Rimmer P. B., Rugheimer S., Shorttle O., 2023, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/acdacc , 166, 39

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    et al., 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731558 , 608, A35

    Cloutier, R. et al., 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731558 , 608, A35

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    et al., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833995 , 621

    Cloutier, R. et al., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833995 , 621

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Madhusudhan N., 2024, Considerations for Photochemical Modeling of Possible Hycean Worlds ( @eprint arXiv 2410.07313 )

    Cooke G. J., Madhusudhan N., 2024, Considerations for Photochemical Modeling of Possible Hycean Worlds ( @eprint arXiv 2410.07313 )

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    D., Meadows V

    Domagal-Goldman S. D., Meadows V. S., Claire M. W., Kasting J. F., 2011, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2010.0509 , 11, 419

    2011

  9. [17]

    S., Mayne N

    Drummond B., Tremblin P., Baraffe I., Amundsen D. S., Mayne N. J., Venot O., Goyal J., 2016, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628799 , 594, A69

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    France K., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...820...89F 820, 89

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    He C., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02140-4 , 8, 182

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    J., McLean A

    Herbst E., Defrees D. J., McLean A. D., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/165682 , 321, 898

    1987 doi

  13. [21]

    Hobbs R., Shorttle O., Madhusudhan N., Rimmer P., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1371 , 487, 2242

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    B., Shorttle O., Madhusudhan N., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1839 , 506, 3186–3204

    Hobbs R., Rimmer P. B., Shorttle O., Madhusudhan N., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1839 , 506, 3186–3204

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Hu R., Seager S., Bains W., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/6 , 769, 6

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Hu R., Damiano M., Scheucher M., Kite E., Seager S., Rauer H., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1f92 , 921, L8

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Hu R., et al., 2025, A water-rich interior in the temperate sub-Neptune K2-18 b revealed by JWST ( @eprint arXiv 2507.12622 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.12622

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J., Ranjan S., Zhan Z., 2022, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2020.2358 , 22, 171

    Huang J., Seager S., Petkowski J. J., Ranjan S., Zhan Z., 2022, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2020.2358 , 22, 171

    2022

  19. [27]

    T., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace346 , 953, 168

    Innes H., Tsai S.-M., Pierrehumbert R. T., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace346 , 953, 168

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Ioppolo S., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-020-01249-0

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Kawashima Y., Ikoma M., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab442a , 884, 98

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    S., Ford E

    Kite E. S., Ford E. B., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6e0 , 864, 75

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    A., 2014, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2014.03.041 , 236, 83

    Krasnopolsky V. A., 2014, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2014.03.041 , 236, 83

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Lavvas P., Coustenis A., Vardavas I., 2008, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2007.05.027 , 56, 67

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    T., Steinrueck M

    Lavvas P., Koskinen T. T., Steinrueck M. E., Muñoz A. G., Showman A. P., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab204e

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Deming D., Burrows A., Fortney J

    Line M. R., Deming D., Burrows A., Fortney J. J., Madhusudhan N., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/32 , 738, 32

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    Loyd R. O. P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824..102L 824, 102

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    Springer International Publishing, p

    Madhusudhan N., 2018, Atmospheric Retrieval of Exoplanets. Springer International Publishing, p. 2153–2182, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_104

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Welbanks L., Piette A

    Madhusudhan N., Nixon M. C., Welbanks L., Piette A. A. A., Booth R. A., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7229 , 891, L7

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Madhusudhan N., Piette A. A. A., Constantinou S., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfd9c , 918, 1

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Madhusudhan N., Sarkar S., Constantinou S., Holmberg M., Piette A. A. A., Moses J. I., 2023a, Carbon-bearing Molecules in a Possible Hycean Atmosphere, https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.05566

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    I., Rigby F., Barrier E., 2023b, @doi [Faraday Discuss.] 10.1039/D3FD00075C , 245, 80

    Madhusudhan N., Moses J. I., Rigby F., Barrier E., 2023b, @doi [Faraday Discuss.] 10.1039/D3FD00075C , 245, 80

    doi

  33. [41]

    Molaverdikhani K., Henning T., Mollière P., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e30 , 883, 194

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Molli \`e re P., van Boekel R., Dullemond C., Henning T., Mordasini C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813...47M 813, 47

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    T., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/25 , 809, 25

    Montet B. T., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/25 , 809, 25

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    I., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737...15M 737, 15

    Moses J. I., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737...15M 737, 15

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    I., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829...66M 829, 66

    Moses J. I., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829...66M 829, 66

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    Pearce B. K. D., Molaverdikhani K., Pudritz R. E., Henning T., H \'e brard E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901..110P 901, 110

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Constantinou S., Binet M., 2025, A Systematic Search for Trace Molecules in Exoplanet K2-18 b ( @eprint arXiv 2505.10539 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10539

    Pica-Ciamarra L., Madhusudhan N., Cooke G. J., Constantinou S., Binet M., 2025, A Systematic Search for Trace Molecules in Exoplanet K2-18 b ( @eprint arXiv 2505.10539 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10539

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Piette A. A. A., Madhusudhan N., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfb1 , 904, 154

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    B., Helling C., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/9 , 224, 9

    Rimmer P. B., Helling C., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/9 , 224, 9

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    Rimmer P., Rugheimer S., 2019, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2019.02.020 , 329, 124

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    B., Xu J., Thompson S

    Rimmer P. B., Xu J., Thompson S. J., Gillen E., Sutherland J. D., Queloz D., 2018, @doi [Science Advances] 10.1126/sciadv.aar3302 , 4

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    Rimmer P. B., Jordan S., Constantinou T., Woitke P., Shorttle O., Paschodimas A., Hobbs R., 2021a, Hydroxide salts in the clouds of Venus: their effect on the sulfur cycle and cloud droplet pH ( @eprint arXiv 2101.08582 )

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Rimmer P., Ranjan S., Rugheimer S., 2021b, @doi [Elements] 10.2138/gselements.17.4.265 , 17, 265

    doi

  46. [54]

    B., Majumdar L., Priyadarshi A., Wright S., Yurchenko S

    Rimmer P. B., Majumdar L., Priyadarshi A., Wright S., Yurchenko S. N., 2021c, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2f3a , 921, L28

    doi

  47. [55]

    Scheucher M., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9084 , 898, 44

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    Schwieterman E., et al., 2017, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2017.1729 , 18, 663

    2017

  49. [57]

    Princeton University Press

    Seager S., 2010, Exoplanet Atmospheres – Physical Processes. Princeton University Press

    2010

  50. [58]

    Seager S., Bains W., Hu R., 2013a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/104 , 775, 104

    doi

  51. [59]

    Seager S., Bains W., Hu R., 2013b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/95 , 777, 95

    doi

  52. [60]

    J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad206e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962L...8S 962, L8

    Shorttle O., Jordan S., Nicholls H., Lichtenberg T., Bower D. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad206e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962L...8S 962, L8

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    Soni V., Acharyya K., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc49 , 958, 143

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    R., Helling C., Diver D

    Stark C. R., Helling C., Diver D. A., Rimmer P. B., 2014, @doi [International Journal of Astrobiology] 10.1017/S1473550413000475 , 13, 165–172

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    W., Kitzmann D., Patzer A

    Stock J. W., Kitzmann D., Patzer A. B. C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.4070S 517, 4070

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    Tsai S.-M., Innes H., Lichtenberg T., Taylor J., Malik M., Chubb K., Pierrehumbert R., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac399a , 922, L27

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    Hébrard, E

    Venot, O. Hébrard, E. Agúndez, M. Dobrijevic, M. Selsis, F. Hersant, F. Iro, N. Bounaceur, R. 2012, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219310 , 546, A43

    2012 doi

  58. [66]

    Vuitton V., Yelle R., Klippenstein S., Hörst S., Lavvas P., 2019, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2018.06.013 , 324, 120

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    F., Batalha N

    Wogan N. F., Batalha N. E., Zahnle K. J., Krissansen-Totton J., Tsai S.-M., Hu R., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2616 , 963, L7

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    Yang J., Hu R., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6b25 , 971, L48

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    Youngblood A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824..101Y 824, 101

    2016 doi

  62. [70]

    I., Fortney J

    Yu X., Moses J. I., Fortney J. J., Zhang X., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfdc7 , 914, 38

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    L., Allen M., Pinto J

    Yung Y. L., Allen M., Pinto J. P., 1984, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/190963 , 55, 465

    1984 doi

  64. [72]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.