Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 6 cited by

Insufficient evidence for DMS and DMDS in the atmosphere of K2-18 b. From a joint analysis of JWST NIRISS, NIRSpec, and MIRI observations

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A joint analysis of the full 0.6–12 µm JWST transmission spectrum of K2-18 b finds insufficient evidence for DMS or DMDS, with ordinary hydrocarbons like ethane fitting the data equally well.

desk verdict A credible joint reanalysis that spells real trouble for the K2-18 b DMS/DMDS claim, with one honest caveat about pressure-broadened cross-sections. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13407 v1 pith:434HU3BL submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

R. Luque , C. Piaulet-Ghorayeb , M. Radica , Q. Xue , M. Zhang , J. L. Bean , D. Samra , M. E. Steinrueck This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords K2-18btransmissionspectroscopydimethylsulfidedisulfideexoplanetatmospheresJWSTBayesianmodelcomparisonbiosignatures
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 the signs of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) claimed in parts of the K2-18 b spectrum hold up when all JWST observations are modeled together. The answer is no: across the full 0.6–12 µm wavelength range there is insufficient evidence for either molecule, and ordinary hydrocarbons such as ethane reproduce the same features just as well. The authors re-reduced the raw data with several independent pipelines and ran two retrieval codes, finding that any preference for DMS/DMDS depends on which reduction is used and on how many molecules are allowed in the model. This matters because DMS has been floated as a potential biosignature; the finding removes the strongest spectral support for that idea without ruling out an ocean world.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a panchromatic 0.6–12 µm transmission spectrum assembled from the three JWST instruments, each reduced by several independent pipelines and analyzed by two retrieval codes, with Bayesian model comparison (comparing log-evidence differences $\Delta\ln Z$) used to judge whether any molecule is detected. The decisive physical object is the methyl functional group, a carbon atom bound to three hydrogen atoms: DMS, DMDS, and ethane all carry two methyl groups, so their C–H stretching band near 3.4 µm and H–C–H bending band near 6.9 µm nearly coincide, making the sulfur molecules hard to distinguish from ordinary hydrocarbons. The comparison is carried out with DMS/DMDS cross sections measured at 278 K in 1 bar nitrogen, even though the planet's photosphere sits near ~1 mbar; the authors state this likely overestimates DMS/DMDS absorption and underestimates their abundances, while incomplete ethane line lists likely do the opposite.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to measure DMS and DMDS cross sections near 1 mbar and 175–250 K and recompute the Bayesian evidence for the same three reductions; if the marginal $\Delta\ln Z \approx 2.3$–$2.8$ preferences in the independent reductions drop below 1, the non-detection is confirmed, whereas if they sharpen into a consistent $\Delta\ln Z \geq 5$ preference, the central claim would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that when the NIRISS, NIRSpec, and MIRI transmission spectra of K2-18 b are modeled jointly over 0.6–12 µm with a chemically reasonable set of molecules, the DMS and DMDS signals reported from single-instrument analyses do not reach statistical significance. In the analysis run on the reductions from the original publications, adding DMS/DMDS to the baseline model changes the Bayesian evidence by $\Delta\ln Z = -0.3$; in two independent reductions the preference rises to $\Delta\ln Z \approx 2.3$–$2.8$, still below the $\Delta\ln Z \geq 5$ threshold the authors take as a detection claim. The mid-infrared features can be fit equally well by ethane ($\mathrm{C_2H_6}$), a photochemically plausible molecule whose methyl-group absorption bands overlap those of DMS/DMDS, so the features are not unique to the sulfur-bearing molecules. The paper also argues that the hot photospheric temperature required to explain the MIRI features alone conflicts with the near-infrared data and stellar energy balance, and estimates that roughly 26 additional MIRI transits would be needed for a $3\sigma$ rejection of a flat line even under the best DMS/DMDS model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the laboratory measurements of DMS and DMDS absorption at 278 K in 1 bar of nitrogen apply to the thin upper atmosphere the telescope actually sees; the authors themselves note this likely overstates how strongly these molecules absorb, and if the real low-pressure behavior differs, the statistical verdict could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The earlier DMS/DMDS detection claims for K2-18 b are not supported once all three JWST instruments are modeled together; the observed features are consistent with ordinary hydrocarbons such as ethane.
  • Any biosignature interpretation of this planet must confront the methyl-group degeneracy: the diagnostic bands at 3.4 and 6.9 µm are shared by many simple organic molecules.
  • The methane detection in K2-18 b's atmosphere remains robust across reductions, while the sulfur-bearing molecules do not survive the joint analysis.
  • A secure DMS/DMDS detection with MIRI would require roughly 25 additional transits, or several years of JWST time, before a 3σ deviation from a flat line could be claimed.
  • Future searches should analyze the complete wavelength range rather than individual instruments to avoid reduction-dependent artifacts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Reader inference: the same methyl-group degeneracy likely applies to any temperate sub-Neptune with a hydrocarbon haze, so a DMS claim from a single spectral window should first be checked against ethane, propyne, and diethyl sulfide.
  • Reader inference: completing laboratory cross-section measurements at low pressure and temperature for DMS/DMDS, and completing the ethane line list, would directly test whether the remaining $\Delta\ln Z \sim 2$ preferences are real or an artifact; the authors' caveats imply the evidence for DMS/DMDS could move in either direction.
  • Testable extension: fit a single shared methyl-group absorber opacity parameter instead of individual DMS/DMDS/ethane abundances; if the data cannot separate the molecules, the evidence of that aggregated model should match the best individual models, quantitatively confirming the degeneracy.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reanalyzes the three JWST transit observations of K2-18 b (NIRISS/SOSS 0.6-2.5 um, NIRSpec/G395H 2.9-5.1 um, MIRI/LRS 5-12 um) and asks whether the claimed dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) detections of Madhusudhan et al. (2023, 2025) survive a joint, panchromatic, model-comparison analysis. The authors combine the published JExoRES reductions with three independent reductions (exoTEDRF for all three instruments; Eureka! and SPARTA for NIRSpec and MIRI) and two atmospheric retrieval codes (PLATON at R=100,000 on the JExoRES spectra; SCARLET at R=20,000 on the independent reductions), all with Bayesian evidence comparison using the Trotta (2008) thresholds. Their central quantitative result is that adding DMS/DMDS to a baseline model decreases ln Z by 0.3 on the JExoRES spectra and increases it by only 2.3-2.8 on the independent reductions, never reaching the paper's Delta-ln-Z >= 5 strong-evidence threshold. They further show that ethane, a photochemically expected methyl-bearing hydrocarbon, provides a comparably good fit; that the hot photospheric temperature needed to explain the MIRI feature amplitudes (M25) is inconsistent with the cool temperature favored by the full spectrum and with energy balance; and that roughly 25 additional MIRI transits (sigma = 13) would be needed to reject a flat line at 3 sigma under the best-fitting DMS/DMDS model.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is an important and timely contribution to the K2-18 b biosignature debate and to JWST exoplanet methodology more broadly. Its strengths are concrete: it is the first joint analysis of all three instruments from Program 2722; it uses three independent reduction pipelines and two retrieval codes; it reproduces the M23 CH4 and CO2 abundances on the same data; it shows explicitly that the DMS/DMDS evidence is below a Delta-ln-Z = 5 threshold under every tested reduction and of either sign depending on the reduction; and it demonstrates a physical inconsistency between the hot MIRI-only photosphere and the full-spectrum constraints. The ethane test generalizes the degeneracy to an entire class of methyl-bearing molecules, and the paper ships reproducible products (Zenodo data products, control/parameter files, public exoTEDRF support for MIRI). The ~25-transit cost estimate, with its large scatter, is a concrete planning figure for the community.

major comments (1)
  1. [Appendix B.1, B.2, and Sec. 5] The central quantitative claim is the set of model-evidence differences reported in Sec. 4 and Table C.1, all computed with DMS/DMDS absorption cross sections measured at 278 K and 1 bar (Sharpe et al. 2004) while the transmission photosphere is near ~1 mbar. The Sec. 5 statement that the absence of low-pressure cross sections 'lead[s] to overestimated DMS/DMDS absorption features' is an abundance-scale statement: broadening at 1 bar changes band shapes and fills in inter-band opacity, so the sign of the effect on Delta ln Z is not established a priori. This is not a purely academic concern because Table C.1 shows the independent-reduction SCARLET runs already return Delta ln Z = 2.3-2.8, within a factor of two of the paper's own 'strong evidence' threshold, and an opacity-shape correction could move these values in either direction. I request a quantitative sensitivity test (for example, repeating the DMS/DMDS model comparison with differently broadened or band-averaged cross sections) or, failing that, a quantitative argument that at the data resolution (R ~ 100-200) the band-averaged opacities are insensitive to the 1 bar versus ~1 mbar assumption; the wording of Sec. 5 should then be amended to state what is and is not covered by the claimed conservatism.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. B.1] The sentence 'To explore the effect of forcing higher temperatures, we perform a retrieval with DMS/DMDS where we impose a minimum temperature of 100 K instead of 200 K' appears to have the comparison reversed: allowing 100 K does not force higher temperatures, while the reported lowering of the DMS/DMDS upper limits is the expected consequence of raising the minimum to 200 K; please restate the experiment and its purpose.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 4.1] The statement that 'any marginal preferences are the result of limiting the number of molecules considered in the model' is stronger than the ethane test supports: in Table C.1, including C2H6 in the baseline leaves the DMS/DMDS preference essentially unchanged (exoTEDRF: Delta ln Z ~ 2.6 with and without C2H6); recommend harmonizing the abstract with the more hedged wording of Sec. 4 ('likely inflated'), since the ethane test demonstrates the degeneracy but not the causal claim.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Sec. 3] The Eureka! MIRI reduction is shown in Fig. 1 but no retrieval is performed on it; add one sentence explaining the choice of the two SCARLET combinations so readers do not infer that this reduction was omitted inadvertently.
  4. [References] Gordon et al. 2022a and 2022b refer to the same HITRAN2020 paper and should be merged into a single reference.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. 4.2] The abstract quotes '~25 more MIRI transits' while Sec. 4.2 reports an average of 26 transits from 1,000 simulations with a standard deviation of 13; please make the numbers consistent and state the scatter alongside the point estimate.
  6. [Table C.1 caption] The caption explains that 'N/A' for CO means an unconstrained posterior, but the same symbol is used for C2H6 rows where the molecule was simply not included; please distinguish the two meanings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-detection is an empirical reanalysis with independent reductions and external opacities.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a statistical reanalysis of archived JWST transit observations, not a derivation of a target quantity from a fitted parameter. The DMS/DMDS and C2H6 comparisons are driven by Bayes factors evaluated with two independent retrieval codes (PLATON and SCARLET) on multiple independently reduced spectra (JExoRES, exoTEDRF, Eureka!, and SPARTA). The cross sections for DMS/DMDS come from external laboratory measurements (Sharpe et al. 2004; HITRAN), not from the authors' own prior claims, and the paper explicitly flags the pressure mismatch between the 1 bar laboratory conditions and the ~1 mbar photosphere, as well as the incompleteness of C2H6 line lists, as limitations. These caveats bear on robustness and correctness, not on circularity: no equation defines the conclusion from its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The estimate of roughly 25 additional MIRI transits is transparently a simulation from the best-fitting PLATON model and is labeled as such, rather than a detection claim. Self-citations to the development of PLATON, exoTEDRF, and SCARLET are normal code-credit citations; the codes are publicly available and the reductions are cross-checked against other pipelines, so they are not load-bearing circular support. No step satisfies the quoted-reduction test for circularity.

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

The evidence comparison hinges on a set of fitted retrieval parameters and stated assumptions. The main free parameters are gas abundances, photospheric temperature, cloud pressure, and per-instrument offsets; none of these is independently measured, so the central statistical comparison is conditional on their priors. The listed assumptions (Trotta thresholds, 1-bar cross sections, incomplete ethane line list, isothermal atmosphere, no TLSe in SCARLET, fixed stellar inputs) are explicit or standard. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Photospheric temperature T_p = Posterior about 175+50/-40 K in PLATON with 200 K lower bound; M25 reported about 422 K from MIRI alone
    Fitted in every retrieval; lowering the prior minimum from 200 K to 100 K changes DMS and DMDS upper limits by 0.35 and 0.57 dex, so the non-detection significance is prior-sensitive.
  • Gas abundances log X for CH4, CO2, H2O, NH3, HCN, CO, and DMS, DMDS, C2H6 when included = Table C.1; e.g., log XCH4 about -0.85 to -1.61; DMS/DMDS upper limits below -2.6 to -4.9
    The core retrieval parameters with flat priors U(-12,-0.522) in both codes; they determine the posteriors and the Bayes factors used for the central claim.
  • Cloud-top pressure log P_cloud = Posterior not shown; priors PLATON U(0,8) Pa and SCARLET U(-3,6.98)
    A gray cloud deck can obscure or mimic the DMS/DMDS features at mid-infrared wavelengths; free in all retrievals.
  • Instrument offset parameters for NIRISS, NRS1, and MIRI = Posterior not shown; uniform ranges +/-200 or +/-250 ppm
    The paper attributes reduction-dependent DMS/DMDS preferences to small changes near 7 and 10 um, so the fitted offsets partly set the evidence.
  • Starspot temperature T_spot and covering fraction f_spot (PLATON only) = Posterior not shown; priors T_spot U(2000,3457) K, f_spot U(0,0.2)
    TLSe modeling in PLATON; the paper says an identical retrieval without TLSe gave indistinguishable abundance posteriors, so this parameter is not central but is fit.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bayesian evidence thresholds from Trotta (2008) are used to classify detections: delta ln Z < 1 indistinguishable, 1 to 2.5 weak, 2.5 to 5 moderate, >= 5 strong.
    The conclusion 'no statistical significance' is defined by these thresholds; another convention could label the exoTEDRF results differently.
  • domain assumption The DMS/DMDS cross sections from Sharpe et al. (2004), measured at 278 K in 1 bar N2, are taken as valid at all temperatures and pressures in the atmospheric model.
    Explicitly stated in Appendix B.1 and B.2; the authors note that 1 bar broadening likely overestimates DMS/DMDS absorption and underestimates abundances. This is load-bearing for the molecular evidence comparison.
  • domain assumption The HITRAN 2020 C2H6 line list, though incomplete, is sufficient to represent ethane absorption for comparison with DMS/DMDS.
    Ethane is the paper's main counter-explanation; the authors note incompleteness tends to underestimate ethane absorption, so ethane remains a viable alternative despite being conservative.
  • domain assumption An isothermal atmosphere with a single photospheric temperature adequately represents the transmission spectrum of K2-18 b.
    Standard retrieval simplification adopted in both PLATON and SCARLET; the retrieved low photospheric temperature differs from M25's value and is a known modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Stellar contamination (TLSe/starspots) does not change the inferred molecular abundances on the NIRISS and NIRSpec spectrum, based on S25; SCARLET omits it and PLATON includes it.
    The paper cites S25 for the null effect; this underpins the choice not to include TLSe in half the retrievals.
  • domain assumption The published stellar parameters R*, Teff, and planet mass from Benneke et al. (2019) and Cloutier et al. (2017) are treated as fixed inputs.
    The transit-depth to abundance mapping depends on these values; they are taken from prior literature rather than re-derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Insufficient evidence for DMS and DMDS in the atmosphere of K2-18 b. From a joint analysis of JWST NIRISS, NIRSpec, and MIRI observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/434HU3BL

@misc{pith2026250513407,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Insufficient evidence for DMS and DMDS in the atmosphere of K2-18 b. From a joint analysis of JWST NIRISS, NIRSpec, and MIRI observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/434HU3BL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13407}
}
read the original abstract

Recent JWST observations of the temperate sub-Neptune K2-18 b have been interpreted as suggestive of a liquid water ocean with possible biological activity. Signatures of DMS and DMDS have been claimed in the near-infrared (using the NIRISS and NIRSpec instruments) and mid-infrared (using MIRI). However, the statistical significance of the atmospheric imprints of these potential biomarkers has yet to be quantified from a joint analysis of the entire planet spectrum. We test the robustness of the proposed DMS/DMDS detections by simultaneously modeling the NIRISS and NIRSpec observations jointly with the MIRI spectrum, considering different data reductions and modeling choices. We use three well-tested pipelines to re-reduce the JWST observations, and two retrieval codes to analyze the resulting transmission spectra as well as previously published data. Our joint analysis of the panchromatic (0.6 - 12 um) spectrum of K2-18 b finds insufficient evidence for the presence of DMS and/or DMDS in the atmosphere of the planet. Furthermore, other molecules containing methyl functional groups (e.g., ethane) with absorption bands similar to DMS/DMDS provide an equally good fit to the data. We find that any marginal preferences are the result of limiting the number of molecules considered in the model and oversensitivity to small changes between data reductions. Our results confirm that there is no statistical significance for DMS or DMDS in K2-18 b's atmosphere. While previous works have demonstrated this on MIRI or NIRISS/NIRSpec observations alone, our analysis of the full transmission spectrum does not support claims of potential biomarkers. Using the best-fitting model including DMS/DMDS on the published data, we estimate that ~25 more MIRI transits would be needed for a 3-sigma rejection of a flat line relative to DMS/DMDS features in the planet's mid-infrared transmission spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13407 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transmission spectra of K2-18 b from exoTEDRF (blue), JExoRES (black), SPARTA (orange) and Eureka! (green). For NIRISS and NIR￾Spec, faded points show higher resolution (R=100 and 200, respectively) spectra, and solid colors are binned for clarity. Smaller panels show error-normalized differences relative to exoTEDRF. The JExoRES spectra used different binning and are interpolated in the difference panels. 2. Data T… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results from the PLATON retrievals performed on the transmission spectrum of K2-18 b produced with JExoRES in M23 and M25. Top: Transmission spectrum (native-resolution data used in the retrievals in gray, binned data in black for visualization purposes). Best-fit models for the five cases outlined in the text are shown: a baseline model (blue), a model with DMS and DMDS (orange), a model with a common hydrocarbon C… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results from the SCARLET retrievals on exoTEDRF and SPARTA where C2H6 is included in the baseline. Top: Retrievals performed on the exoTEDRF dataset (data in gray, binned in purple). The best-fit model for the retrievals without (with) DMS or DMDS is shown in dark (light) purple, smoothed to R = 200. We show as a dashed line the impact of increasing the C2H6 abundance to 10−2 in the best-fit model from the retrieval… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Comprehensive Reanalysis of K2-18 b's JWST NIRISS+NIRSpec Transmission Spectrum

    astro-ph.EP 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A multi-method reanalysis of K2-18 b's JWST spectrum confirms methane but finds no robust carbon dioxide or dimethyl sulfide, favoring an oxygen-poor mini-Neptune over a hycean ocean world.

  2. A water-rich interior in the temperate sub-Neptune K2-18 b revealed by JWST

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New JWST data robustly detect CH4 and CO2 in K2-18 b's atmosphere, indicating a water-rich interior; DMS, CH3SH, and N2O remain marginal, and abiotic organosulfur chemistry is a viable explanation.

  3. Three-dimensional Transport-induced Chemistry on Temperate sub-Neptune K2-18b, Part I: the Effects of Atmospheric Dynamics

    astro-ph.EP 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On K2-18b, a 3D climate model shows atmospheric winds concentrate long-lived gases at the evening terminator, and the fastest rotation studied creates tracer-rich polar regions.

  4. Water gas discs in exo-asteroid belts

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Water vapour from exo-asteroid belts around solar-mass and heavier stars can supply ocean-scale water to inner planets and remain detectable for tens of Myr with current facilities.

  5. Hydrocarbon Hazes on Temperate sub-Neptune K2-18b supported by data from the James Webb Space Telescope

    astro-ph.EP 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using a new MIRI LRS reduction plus published NIRISS/NIRSpec data, the authors find that hydrocarbon haze analogues can reproduce K2-18b's 0.85-12 µm transmission spectrum without instrumental offsets, yielding an H2-...

  6. Can Moons Exist around the Habitable-zone Planet K2-18b?

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    N-body simulations with tidal spin evolution show that a Moon-like satellite around K2-18b is ejected within about 10 Myr, so the 3 Gyr-old system is unlikely to host an exomoon today.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2023, , 135, 075001

    Albert , L., Lafreni \`e re , D., Doyon , R., et al. 2023, , 135, 075001

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    B., Colón, K

    Barclay, T., Kostov, V. B., Colón, K. D., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 300

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503

    Bell , T., Ahrer , E.-M., Brande , J., et al. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, 1504, arXiv:1504.07655

    Benneke, B. 2015, arXiv e-prints, 1504, arXiv:1504.07655

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03325

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

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    & Seager, S

    Benneke, B. & Seager, S. 2012, ApJ, 753, 100

    work page 2012

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    & Seager, S

    Benneke, B. & Seager, S. 2013, ApJ, 778, 153

    2013

  2. [10]

    2019, , 887, L14

    Benneke , B., Wong , I., Piaulet , C., et al. 2019, , 887, L14

    2019

  3. [11]

    2021, , 646, A15

    Blain , D., Charnay , B., & B \'e zard , B. 2021, , 646, A15

    2021

  4. [12]

    P., et al

    Bouwman , J., Kendrew , S., Greene , T. P., et al. 2023, , 135, 038002

    2023

  5. [13]

    2014, , 564, A125

    Buchner , J., Georgakakis , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2014, , 564, A125

    2014

  6. [14]

    2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline

    2023

  7. [15]

    2017, , 608, A35

    Cloutier , R., Astudillo-Defru , N., Doyon , R., et al. 2017, , 608, A35

    2017

  8. [16]

    A., , Yurchenko, S

    Coles, P. A., , Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4638

    2019

  9. [17]

    2023, Nature, 620, 292

    Coulombe, L.-P., Benneke, B., Challener, R., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 292

    2023

  10. [18]

    Davenport , B., Kempton , E. M. R., Nixon , M. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.01498

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J., Hutchings , J

    Doyon , R., Willott , C. J., Hutchings , J. B., et al. 2023, , 135, 098001

    2023

  12. [20]

    I., et al

    Esparza-Borges , E., L \'o pez-Morales , M., Adams Redai , J. I., et al. 2023, , 955, L19

    2023

  13. [21]

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

    Feinstein, A. D., Radica, M., Welbanks, L., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 670

    2023

  14. [22]

    P., Cameron , E., & Pettitt , A

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., Cameron , E., & Pettitt , A. N. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 10

    2019

  15. [23]

    E., Rothman , L

    Gordon , I. E., Rothman , L. S., Hargreaves , R. J., et al. 2022 a , J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf., 277, 107949

    2022

  16. [24]

    E., Rothman , L

    Gordon , I. E., Rothman , L. S., Hargreaves , R. J., et al. 2022 b , , 277, 107949

    2022

  17. [25]

    & Wakeford, H

    Grant, D. & Wakeford, H. R. 2022, Exo-TiC/ExoTiC-LD: ExoTiC-LD v3.0.0

    2022

  18. [26]

    J., Gordon , I

    Hargreaves , R. J., Gordon , I. E., Rey , M., et al. 2020, , 247, 55

    2020

  19. [27]

    J., Gordon , I

    Hargreaves , R. J., Gordon , I. E., Rothman , L. S., et al. 2019, , 232, 35

    2019

  20. [28]

    J., Tennyson , J., Kaminsky , B

    Harris , G. J., Tennyson , J., Kaminsky , B. M., Pavlenko , Y. V., & Jones , H. R. A. 2006, , 367, 400

    2006

  21. [29]

    & Madhusudhan , N

    Holmberg , M. & Madhusudhan , N. 2023, , 524, 377

    2023

  22. [30]

    1986, , 98, 609

    Horne , K. 1986, , 98, 609

    1986

  23. [31]

    2024, , 975, 146

    Huang , Z., Yu , X., Tsai , S.-M., et al. 2024, , 975, 146

    2024

  24. [32]

    2022, , 661, A80

    Jakobsen , P., Ferruit , P., Alves de Oliveira , C., et al. 2022, , 661, A80

    2022

  25. [33]

    Kempton , E. M. R., Zhang , M., Bean , J. L., et al. 2023, , 620, 67

    2023

  26. [34]

    Kipping , D. M. 2013, , 435, 2152

    2013

  27. [35]

    M., Witzke , V., Shapiro , A

    Kostogryz , N. M., Witzke , V., Shapiro , A. I., et al. 2022, , 666, A60

    2022

  28. [36]

    2015, , 127, 1161

    Kreidberg , L. 2015, , 127, 1161

    2015

  29. [37]

    2008, A&A, 481, L83

    Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Pont, F., Vidal-Madjar, A., & Sing, D. 2008, A&A, 481, L83

    2008

  30. [38]

    2025, , 983, L40

    Madhusudhan , N., Constantinou , S., Holmberg , M., et al. 2025, , 983, L40

    2025

  31. [39]

    Madhusudhan, N., Piette, A. A. A., & Constantinou, S. 2021, ApJ, 918, 1

    2021

  32. [40]

    2023, , 956, L13

    Madhusudhan , N., Sarkar , S., Constantinou , S., et al. 2023, , 956, L13

    2023

  33. [41]

    T., Morton , T

    Montet , B. T., Morton , T. D., Foreman-Mackey , D., et al. 2015, , 809, 25

    2015

  34. [42]

    M., et al

    Piaulet, C., Benneke, B., Almenara, J. M., et al. 2023, Nat. Astronomy, 7, 206

    2023

  35. [43]

    2024, ApJ, 974, L10

    Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Benneke, B., Radica, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, L10

    2024

  36. [44]

    J., Constantinou , S., & Binet , M

    Pica-Ciamarra , L., Madhusudhan , N., Cooke , G. J., Constantinou , S., & Binet , M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10539

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Piette , A. A. A. & Madhusudhan , N. 2020, , 497, 5136

    2020

  38. [46]

    L., Kyuberis, A

    Polyansky, O. L., Kyuberis, A. A., Zobov, N. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2597

    2018

  39. [47]

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

    Rackham, B. V., Apai, D., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, ApJ, 853, 122

    2018

  40. [48]

    2024 a , The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6898

    Radica , M. 2024 a , The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6898

    2024

  41. [49]

    2024 b , radicamc/exoUPRF: v1.0.1

    Radica , M. 2024 b , radicamc/exoUPRF: v1.0.1

    2024

  42. [50]

    2022, PASP, 134, 104502

    Radica, M., Albert, L., Taylor, J., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 104502

    2022

  43. [51]

    2024, ApJ, 962, L20

    Radica, M., Coulombe, L.-P., Taylor, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, L20

    2024

  44. [52]

    2025, , 979, L5

    Radica , M., Piaulet-Ghorayeb , C., Taylor , J., et al. 2025, , 979, L5

    2025

  45. [53]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 835

    Radica, M., Welbanks, L., Espinoza, N., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 835

    2023

  46. [54]

    2023, ApJ, 954, L52

    Roy, P.-A., Benneke, B., Piaulet, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, L52

    2023

  47. [55]

    2024, , 531, 2731

    Sarkar , S., Madhusudhan , N., Constantinou , S., & Holmberg , M. 2024, , 531, 2731

    2024

  48. [56]

    P., MacDonald , R

    Schmidt , S. P., MacDonald , R. J., Tsai , S.-M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.18477

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    W., Johnson , T

    Sharpe , S. W., Johnson , T. J., Sams , R. L., et al. 2004, Applied Spectroscopy, 58, 1452

    2004

  50. [58]

    Shorttle , O., Jordan , S., Nicholls , H., Lichtenberg , T., & Bower , D. J. 2024, , 962, L8

    2024

  51. [59]

    2004, in AIP Con

    Skilling , J. 2004, in AIP Con. Proc., Vol. 735, Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, ed. R. Fischer , R. Preuss , & U. V. Toussaint (AIP), 395--405

    2004

  52. [60]

    2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833

    Skilling, J. 2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833

    2006

  53. [61]

    J., & Seager , S

    Sousa-Silva , C., Petkowski , J. J., & Seager , S. 2019, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 21, 18970

    2019

  54. [62]

    2004, Colloid and Polymer Science, 283, 235

    Tammer, M. 2004, Colloid and Polymer Science, 283, 235

    2004

  55. [63]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.15916

    Taylor , J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.15916

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71

    Trotta , R. 2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71

    2008

  57. [65]

    P., Tinetti, G., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S

    Tsiaras, A., Waldmann, I. P., Tinetti, G., Tennyson, J., & Yurchenko, S. N. 2019, Nat. Astronomy, 3, 1086

    2019

  58. [66]

    & Madhusudhan , N

    Welbanks , L. & Madhusudhan , N. 2022, , 933, 79

    2022

  59. [67]

    2023, , 165, 112

    Welbanks , L., McGill , P., Line , M., & Madhusudhan , N. 2023, , 165, 112

    2023

  60. [68]

    C., McGill , P., et al

    Welbanks , L., Nixon , M. C., McGill , P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21788

    2025

  61. [69]

    F., Batalha , N

    Wogan , N. F., Batalha , N. E., Zahnle , K. J., et al. 2024, , 963, L7

    2024

  62. [70]

    S., Rieke , G

    Wright , G. S., Rieke , G. H., Glasse , A., et al. 2023, , 135, 048003

    2023

  63. [71]

    L., Zhang , M., et al

    Xue , Q., Bean , J. L., Zhang , M., et al. 2024, , 963, L5

    2024

  64. [72]

    N., Mellor, T

    Yurchenko, S. N., Mellor, T. M., Freedman, R. S., & Tennyson, J. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5282

    2020

  65. [73]

    Zhang , M., Chachan , Y., Kempton , E. M. R., & Knutson , H. A. 2019, , 131, 034501

    2019

  66. [74]

    Zhang , M., Chachan , Y., Kempton , E. M. R., Knutson , H. A., & Chang , W. H. 2020, , 899, 27

    2020

  67. [75]

    2024, , 961, L44

    Zhang , M., Hu , R., Inglis , J., et al. 2024, , 961, L44

    2024

  68. [76]

    L., et al

    Zhang , M., Paragas , K., Bean , J. L., et al. 2025, , 169, 38

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.