Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 80 references

JWST COMPASS: A NIRSpec G395H Transmission Spectrum of the Super-Earth GJ 357 b

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST's NIRSpec G395H spectrum of the warm super-Earth GJ 357 b is featureless, and forward models exclude low-mean-molecular-weight and low-metallicity atmospheres at 3σ, leaving a heavy secondary atmosphere or a bare rock.

desk verdict Solid single-transit non-detection that sharpens the GJ 357 b constraints, but the abstract overstates the exclusion limits and the constant detector-offset assumption deserves a second look. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07165 v1 pith:5GQAEM4I submitted 2025-07-09 astro-ph.EP

Jea Adams Redai , Nicholas Wogan , Nicole L. Wallack , Munazza K. Alam , Artyom Aguichine , Angie Wolfgang , Hannah R. Wakeford , Johanna Teske
show 9 more authors
Nicholas Scarsdale Sarah E. Moran Mercedes Lopez Morales Annabella Meech Peter Gao Anna Gagnebin Natasha E. Batalha Natalie M. Batalha Lili Alderson
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords GJ357bsuper-EarthtransmissionspectroscopyNIRSpecG395HJWSTexoplanetatmospheresmeanmolecularweightatmosphericescape
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 reports the JWST NIRSpec G395H transmission spectrum of GJ 357 b, a warm ($T_{\mathrm{eq}}\approx 525$ K) rocky super-Earth orbiting a nearby M dwarf at 9.44 pc. The spectrum, binned into 53 channels with median precisions of 18 and 27 ppm on the two detectors, is flat: no molecular absorption features appear, and a two-flat-line model is preferred over a model with an agnostic Gaussian feature. Comparing the data with 1D forward models rules out atmospheres with mean molecular weight below $8$ g/mol and metallicities below roughly $300$–$500\times$ solar at $3\sigma$, for cloud tops above about $10^{-4}$ bar. The paper concludes that GJ 357 b most likely has either a high-mean-molecular-weight secondary atmosphere, perhaps rich in CO$_2$ or O$_2$, or no atmosphere at all. This matters because it adds one of the closest super-Earths to the evidence that warm rocky planets around M dwarfs rarely retain light primordial envelopes, and it sets up a scheduled thermal-emission observation to distinguish the two remaining scenarios.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the flat transmission spectrum together with a specific treatment of a known instrument systematic. The 53 spectroscopic channels are fit with two zero-slope lines, one per detector, allowing a single constant vertical offset between the NRS1 and NRS2 detectors; a Bayes factor of $0.49$–$0.68$ prefers this flat model over a model that adds a Gaussian feature. The physical exclusions come from forward models: chemical-equilibrium spectra at multiples of solar metallicity, H$_2$O–H$_2$ mixtures, an analytical pressure–temperature profile, and a transmission-spectrum code, all compared with the data using both $\chi^2$ tests and Bayesian retrievals with an error-inflation term. The detector offset is the load-bearing systematic, since absorbing it as one fitted constant per detector is what prevents a known instrumental jump from masquerading as an atmospheric feature.

What would settle it

Split the observed visit into halves and refit the detector offset separately for each half; if the two inferred offsets differ by more than their uncertainties, the flat-spectrum conclusion and the atmospheric exclusions would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the featureless 3–5 μm transmission spectrum of GJ 357 b is an informative null result. Against chemical-equilibrium models, the data exclude metallicities below about $300$–$500\times$ solar, and against H$_2$O–H$_2$ mixtures they exclude mean molecular weights below about $8$ g/mol, both at $3\sigma$, for opaque pressure levels above roughly $10^{-4}$ bar. Because the planet's bulk density allows at most a $\sim$180 bar H$_2$–He envelope and energy-limited escape would strip such an envelope within about 50 Myr, a primordial low-MMW atmosphere is implausible at the planet's $\gtrsim$5 Gyr age. The paper therefore argues that the two viable states are a high-MMW secondary atmosphere, most plausibly O$_2$- or CO$_2$-rich given preferential hydrogen loss, or a bare rock with no atmosphere, which fits the data at $0.3\sigma$.

Load-bearing premise

The atmospheric limits assume that the brightness offset between the two detectors is a single constant that does not change with wavelength or time; if that offset drifts, the measured flatness and the resulting exclusions could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A primordial hydrogen-dominated envelope is ruled out at $3\sigma$, so GJ 357 b joins the growing set of warm rocky planets around M dwarfs with no detectable low-mean-molecular-weight atmosphere.
  • If an atmosphere exists, it must be a high-mean-molecular-weight secondary atmosphere, and evolutionary escape models make a CO$_2$- or O$_2$-rich composition more likely than H$_2$O- or CH$_4$-rich air.
  • The single archived MIRI F1500W secondary eclipse should distinguish a bare basalt surface from an atmosphere with $\gtrsim$0.1 bar CO$_2$ at $\gtrsim$2$\sigma$, giving a near-term empirical test.
  • A joint analysis with the published NIRISS/SOSS spectrum could push the metallicity exclusion beyond $500\times$ solar, but because both spectra are flat it will not separate a bare rock from a high-MMW atmosphere with high clouds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to apply the same two-offset-line analysis to the other planets in the same survey; if most of them also come back flat, the conclusion that M-dwarf super-Earths routinely lose their primordial envelopes becomes a population statement rather than a single-object result.
  • The escape-lifetime argument assumes an energy-limited efficiency of 30%; if the true efficiency is much lower, a heavier primordial envelope could survive longer, and the interpretation would shift from 'escaped long ago' to 'never accreted in appreciable amounts.'
  • Thermal emission at longer wavelengths than the single F1500W point would do more than separate airless from aired: a full MIRI spectrum of the 15 μm CO$_2$ band could directly measure the secondary atmosphere's composition if one is present.
  • Time-resolved fits of the detector offset on this same visit would directly test the weakest assumption, and could be reported as a robustness check in a follow-up paper.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. Adams Redai et al. present a single JWST/NIRSpec G395H transmission observation of the super-Earth GJ 357 b, reduced independently with the Tiberius and Eureka! pipelines. From white-light and 53-bin spectroscopic light-curve fits they obtain a spectrum that is consistent with a flat line plus a constant offset between the NRS1 and NRS2 detectors; a non-physical Gaussian-feature model is mildly disfavored by Bayesian evidence. Comparing the binned spectrum to 1D equilibrium-chemistry and H2O-H2 forward models, they report 3-sigma exclusions of mean molecular weight below about 8 g/mol and metallicity below about 300-500x solar for cloud-free cases, with a high-altitude cloud/haze caveat stated in the body. They combine mass-radius constraints and energy-limited escape calculations to argue that a primordial H2-rich envelope would have escaped, and conclude that GJ 357 b most likely has either a high-MMW secondary atmosphere (e.g., CO2/O2 rich) or no atmosphere at all. The paper also predicts that an archived JWST MIRI F1500W secondary eclipse can provide tentative discrimination between these scenarios.

Significance. If the reported constraints hold, this is a valuable addition to the small but growing JWST sample of warm, rocky planets around M dwarfs with featureless transmission spectra. The paper's strengths include two independent reductions with consistent results, use of publicly available reduction and modeling tools, high per-bin precision (18-27 ppm), and clear presentation of the model-dependent exclusion contours. The quantitative lower bounds on mean molecular weight and metallicity are useful for population synthesis and for planning future observations, and the MIRI eclipse prediction is concrete and testable. The result is not paradigm-breaking, but it is exactly the kind of careful atmospheric constraint that the field currently needs.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.1-3.2; Table 3; Figs. 2 and 4] The central quantitative claims - the 3-sigma exclusions of MMW < 8 g/mol and Z < 300-500x solar - are derived after modeling the NRS1-NRS2 discontinuity with a single, wavelength-independent vertical offset per detector. The paper tests time-dependent systematics and limb-darkening choices, but it never tests a wavelength-dependent component of this offset (e.g., a slope, curvature, or fringing within NRS1 or NRS2). Because the molecular features of interest are also wavelength-dependent, such a systematic could either mimic or mask spectral features and thereby bias the flatness conclusion and the exclusion contours. Agreement between the Tiberius and Eureka! reductions does not remove this concern, since both reductions use the same instrument data and similar systematics. I recommend adding tests with per-detector linear or low-order polynomial offset terms in both the non-physical and physical model fits, and/or deriving the exclusions independently from NRS1 and NRS2 and from wavelength subsets, to demonstrate that the reported 3-sigma boundaries are robust to the offset parameterization.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (6)] I am unable to reproduce the quoted escape rate and lifetimes from the stated inputs. With F_XUV = 1.156e2 erg/s/cm2, R_p = 1.217 R_Earth, M_p = 1.84 M_Earth, a = 0.035 AU, and eta = 0.3, Equation (6) gives about 7e4 kg/s, not 6.63e5 kg/s; the corresponding lifetime for the 0.01 wt% H2-He envelope is about 0.5 Gyr, not 50 Myr. Similarly, the 1.97 wt% envelope under the saturation flux of about 1.13e5 erg/s/cm2 is lost in roughly 100 Myr (or about 10 Myr if the paper's 6.63e5 kg/s rate is used), not 500 kyr. The qualitative conclusion that a primordial envelope is unlikely to survive may still hold, but the numerical values and the '50 Myr' and '500 kyr' statements need to be corrected and checked. If F_XUV was intended to be 1.156e3 erg/s/cm2, that value and the conversion to L_XUV should be stated consistently.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract and the summary bullets state that MMW <= 8 g/mol and metallicity <= 300-500x solar are ruled out without the high-altitude cloud caveat that is explicit in Section 3.2 ('A low MMW atmosphere remains possible only if the atmosphere has a high altitude cloud or haze layer (e.g., < 10^-2 bar; Figure 4)'). As written, the headline claims overstate the constraints. The abstract and conclusions should carry the same condition, for example 'in the cloud-free case' or 'for opaque pressure levels above about 10^-2 bar'.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2.1] There is a missing space in 'theTiberius pipeline', and the text refers to 'GJ-527-b' where 'GJ 357 b' is intended.
  2. [Title and Abstract] The typeset manuscript title contains 'COMP ASS' and 'T ransmission'; these should be 'COMPASS' and 'Transmission'.
  3. [Section 3.2] The text uses 'Baysian' instead of 'Bayesian' in the description of the model comparison approaches.
  4. [Section 4.1] The notation is confusing because the text reports an X-ray luminosity L_X in erg/s and then an XUV flux F_XUV in erg/s/cm2 without explicitly stating how L_XUV in watts is obtained for Equation (6); please state the conversion relation used.
  5. [Figure 4 caption] The caption states 'MMW <~ 10 g/mol' for the metallicity panels, while the text quotes a range of 10-15 g/mol for the corresponding threshold metallicities; these numbers should be harmonized.
  6. [Section 4.3] There is a typo in 'the tranmission spectrum'; it should be 'transmission spectrum'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the atmospheric exclusions follow from externally computed forward models compared to measured spectra, with detector offsets fitted as nuisance parameters rather than as predicted quantities.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are obtained by comparing a measured transmission spectrum to forward-modeled spectra. The derivation chain is: (i) two independent reductions (Tiberius and Eureka!) produce 53 binned spectroscopic light curves; (ii) a non-physical flat model with a free vertical offset per detector is preferred over a Gaussian-feature model by Bayes factors of 0.49 and 0.68; (iii) physical model spectra are generated with Photochem chemical equilibrium, PICASO radiative transfer, archived opacity databases, and an external analytical P-T profile, with a vertical offset and an error-inflation term as fitted nuisance parameters; (iv) exclusions are computed by chi-square tests and Bayesian retrievals. At no stage is the excluded quantity (mean molecular weight or metallicity) an input to the generation of the observed spectrum, and the detector offset is a free parameter, not a fitted prediction renamed as a result. The escape argument is a separate consistency check using an XMM-Newton X-ray luminosity, Sanz-Forcada XUV scaling, and an energy-limited escape formula; it is not used to derive the non-detection. Self-citations to previous COMPASS papers are frequent but serve as methodological precedent (reduction choices, known detector offset, cloud-deck parametrization) and are not the evidence that rules out low-MMW atmospheres; the same conclusions are reached with two independent reductions and externally validated tools. The assumption that the NRS1-NRS2 offset is constant with wavelength is a modeling assumption that could affect robustness, and the paper explicitly acknowledges alternate scenarios (high-altitude clouds, bare rock) and theoretical disagreement on secondary-atmosphere escape; these are uncertainty or assumption limitations, not circular reductions. The abstract states the metallicity exclusion somewhat more strongly than the body's opaque-pressure caveat, but that is an accuracy issue, not circularity. No equation or parameter in the paper is defined in terms of the target result, so no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The atmospheric constraints rest on forward models with several free parameters (metallicity, cloud-top pressure, per-detector offsets, error inflation); the escape interpretation adds an assumed efficiency and a single-epoch XUV estimate. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • metallicity (multiple of solar) = posterior favors high values; <300-500x solar excluded at 3-sigma
    Free parameter in forward-model fits and Bayesian retrieval over 1-1000x solar; the exclusion threshold is the main atmospheric result.
  • opaque pressure level (cloud top pressure) = excluded above about 1e-4 bar for the low-metallicity bound; lower (higher-altitude) cloud decks allow low-MMW…
    Free parameter (1 to 1e-5 bar) in model grids and retrievals; the cloud-deck degeneracy is central to the interpretation.
  • per-detector vertical offsets (NRS1, NRS2) = 56-57 ppm offset between detectors, fitted for each reduction
    Free parameter in flat and Gaussian feature models and in atmospheric-model fits; the offset assumption is a key systematic choice.
  • error inflation term f = not reported quantitatively
    Added in quadrature to observed errors in Bayesian likelihood (Eq. 4-5); inflates uncertainties and changes exclusion boundaries.
  • escape efficiency eta = 0.3 (assumed)
    Hand-chosen from Luger & Barnes (2015), not fitted; lifetime estimate scales linearly with eta, but central conclusion is robust for reasonable eta.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Energy-limited XUV escape approximation, Eq. 6
    Used in Sec 4.1 to estimate H2-He lifetime; assumes efficient, energy-limited escape of a primordial atmosphere.
  • domain assumption Current XUV luminosity derived from one XMM-Newton X-ray observation via Sanz-Forcada relation
    Sec 4.1. Single-epoch X-ray luminosity extrapolated to XUV; history of saturation period uses Owen & Wu (2017).
  • domain assumption Forward atmospheric models (PICASO, photochem chemical equilibrium, Guillot 2010 P-T profile, curated opacities) are representative
    Sec 3.2; the exclusion limits and allowed compositions depend on these models.
  • domain assumption NRS1-NRS2 offset is instrumental and constant per detector
    Sec 3.1; a single vertical offset per detector is fit; if offset were wavelength-dependent, the flat spectrum and constraints could change.
  • domain assumption Bulk composition models (Zeng & Jacobsen 2016, Lopez & Fortney 2014) bound the H2-He envelope to <0.01 wt%
    Sec 4.1 and Fig 6; used to estimate maximum primary atmosphere mass for escape lifetime.
  • standard math Standard transit light-curve and systematic models with batman, including limb darkening from stellar grids
    Sec 2.2; used to derive transit depths from raw light curves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST COMPASS: A NIRSpec G395H Transmission Spectrum of the Super-Earth GJ 357 b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5GQAEM4I

@misc{pith2026250707165,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST COMPASS: A NIRSpec G395H Transmission Spectrum of the Super-Earth GJ 357 b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5GQAEM4I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07165}
}
abstract

We present JWST NIRSpec/G395H transmission spectroscopy observations of GJ 357 b, a warm ($T_{\mathrm{eq}} \approx 525$ K) super-Earth ($1.2\ \mathrm{R_{\oplus}} $, $1.84\ \mathrm{M_{\oplus}} $) orbiting a nearby M3-type star, with a median precision of 18 ppm and 27 ppm in NRS1 and NRS2, respectively. These precisions are obtained by binning the spectrum into 53 spectroscopic channels with a resolution of 60 pixels (around 0.02 $\mu$m) each. Our analysis of the transmission spectrum reveals no detectable atmospheric spectral features. By comparing the observed spectrum with 1D forward models, we rule out atmospheres with mean molecular weights (MMW) lower than 8 g/mol to $3 \sigma$, as well as atmospheres with metallicities less than 300x solar. The lack of a low MMW primary atmosphere is consistent with a primordial H$_2$ rich atmosphere having escaped, given the planet's $\gtrsim5$ Gyr age, relatively low surface gravity (log g = 3.09), and its likely history of substantial incident extreme ultraviolet radiation. We conclude that GJ 357 b most likely possesses either a high-MMW secondary atmosphere, perhaps rich in oxidized gases like CO$_2$, or is a bare rock with no atmosphere. Upcoming scheduled JWST thermal emission observations could help distinguish between these scenarios by detecting signatures indicative of atmospheric heat redistribution or molecular absorption.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07165 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Tiberius white light curves for each detector and reduction. Our best-fit models, including systematics, are overplotted on the data in white (NRS1) and black (NRS2). Right column: the residuals from the models. Binned light curves and residuals are also shown. Bottom: Same as top, for Eureka! Reduction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Comparison of the Tiberius (pale blue) and Eureka! (dark blue) transmission spectra of GJ 357 b in 60 pixel bins. Bottom: Difference between the two reductions. our single visit. The spectra derived from the two inde￾pendent reductions, Tiberius and Eureka!, show gen￾eral consistency in shape. The pipelines were kept inde￾pendent by design to ensure our conclusions were robust against data reduction choices. Al… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of transit depth precisions achieved by each independent reduction (Tiberius in pale blue, Eureka! in dark blue) compared to the predicted values from PandExo simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Tiberius reduction compared to several atmospheric compositions for GJ 357 b. Modeled atmospheres are fit to the the NRS1 and NRS2 datasets independently, as indicated by the vertical grey bar. The 100× solar metallicity atmosphere is confidently ruled out by the d…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mass-radius diagram for small planets (0.2 ≤ Mp ≤ 30M⊕) derived from the NASA Exoplanet Archive, with planets shown as points and color-coded by composition. The left panel depicts the bulk water mass fraction (Aguichine et al. 2021), while the right panel shows the bu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Predicted day side thermal emission from GJ 357 b for a bare rock with zero albedo (black line), bare basalt (gray line), pure CO2 atmospheres with surface pres￾sures of 0.1 and 100 bar (red and blue lines), and an atmo￾sphere with 0.1 bar CO2 and 10 bar O2 (orange lin…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99

    Aguichine, A., Mousis, O., Deleuil, M., & Marcq, E. 2021, ApJ, 914, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99 2021

  2. [2]

    K., Gao, P., Adams Redai, J., et al

    Alam, M. K., Gao, P., Adams Redai, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03154, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.03154

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.03154 2024

  3. [3]

    2022, Exo-TiC/ExoTiC-JEDI: v0.1-beta-release, v0.1, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7185855

    Alderson, L., Grant, D., & Wakeford, H. 2022, Exo-TiC/ExoTiC-JEDI: v0.1-beta-release, v0.1, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7185855

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7185855 2022

  4. [4]

    R., Alam, M

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3 2023

  5. [5]

    E., Wakeford, H

    Alderson, L., Batalha, N. E., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad32c9

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad32c9 2024

  6. [6]

    E., Wallack, N

    Alderson, L., Moran, S. E., Wallack, N. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14596, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14596

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.14596 2025

  7. [7]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 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...

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    2022, Resampled Opacity Database for PICASO, 2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6928501

    Batalha, N., Freedman, R., Gharib-Nezhad, E., & Lupu, R. 2022, Resampled Opacity Database for PICASO, 2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6928501

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6928501 2022

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    2018, ApJL, 856, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab896

    Stevenson, K. 2018, ApJL, 856, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab896

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Marley, M

    Batalha, N. E., Marley, M. S., Lewis, N. K., & Fortney, J. J. 2019, ApJ, 878, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b51

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    E., Wolfgang, A., Teske, J., et al

    Batalha, N. E., Wolfgang, A., Teske, J., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9f45

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al

    Batalha, N. E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 064501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Rowe, J

    Batalha, N. M., Rowe, J. F., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2013, ApJS, 204, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/24

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4503, doi: 10.21105/joss.04503

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

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100

    Benneke, B., & Seager, S. 2012, ApJ, 753, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/100

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Ferruit, P., Giardino, G., et al

    Birkmann, S. M., Ferruit, P., Giardino, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142592

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Koch, D

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D. G., Basri, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/19

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    2021a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001 —

    Buchner, J. 2021a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001 —. 2021b, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    doi

  11. [19]

    2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.8.2, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7229890

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.8.2, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7229890

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Droettboom, M., Hunter, J., et al

    Caswell, T. A., Droettboom, M., Hunter, J., et al. 2019, matplotlib/matplotlib v3.1.0, v3.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2893252

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    C., & Kasting, J

    Catling, D. C., & Kasting, J. F. 2017, Atmospheric Evolution on Inhabited and Lifeless Worlds (Cambridge University Press)

    2017

  14. [22]

    D., & Pierrehumbert, R

    Chatterjee, R. D., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05188, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.05188

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Diamond-Lowe, H., Berta-Thompson, Z., Charbonneau, D., & Kempton, E. M. R. 2018, AJ, 156, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac6dd

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Akin, C

    Diamond-Lowe, H., Mendonca, J. M., Akin, C. J., et al. 2023, The Hot Rocks Survey: Testing 9 Irradiated Terrestrial Exoplanets for Atmospheres, JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #3730

    2023

  17. [25]

    D., & Charbonneau, D

    Dressing, C. D., & Charbonneau, D. 2015, ApJ, 807, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/45 15

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

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

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

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    E., & Sari, R

    Ginzburg, S., Schlichting, H. E., & Sari, R. 2016, ApJ, 825, 29, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/29

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6816, doi: 10.21105/joss.06816

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

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Grant, D., & Wakeford, H. R. 2022, Exo-TiC/ExoTiC-LD: ExoTiC-LD v3.0.0, v3.0.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7437681

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39

    2023

  23. [31]

    P., Line, M

    Greene, T. P., Line, M. R., Montero, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 17, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/17

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

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

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

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Lichtenberg, T., et al

    Hammond, M., Guimond, C. M., Lichtenberg, T., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada0bc

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    2012, ApJ, 754, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/60

    Heng, K., & Kopparla, P. 2012, ApJ, 754, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/60

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Marcy, G

    Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2012, ApJS, 201, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/15

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    L., & Seager, S

    Hu, R., Ehlmann, B. L., & Seager, S. 2012, ApJ, 752, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/7

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

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

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

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    S., Pozuelos, F

    Jenkins, J. S., Pozuelos, F. J., Tuomi, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2937

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Louden, T., et al

    Kirk, J., Wheatley, P. J., Louden, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx752

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    V., MacDonald, R

    Kirk, J., Rackham, B. V., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abfcd2

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    B., Fu, G., et al

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

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Koll, D. D. B. 2022, ApJ, 924, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b48

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602

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

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    L., D´ esert, J.-M., et al

    Kreidberg, L., Bean, J. L., D´ esert, J.-M., et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 69, doi: 10.1038/nature12888

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    Fortney, J. J. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 8374, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52642-6

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21364, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21364

    Lei, E., & Molli` ere, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21364, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21364

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    2022, AJ, 164, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac75de

    Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac75de

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Marley, M. S. 2015, ApJ, 807, 183, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/183

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    D., & Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 792, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/1

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1231

    Luger, R., & Barnes, R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1231

    2015

  43. [51]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 628, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935801

    Luque, R., Pall´ e, E., Kossakowski, D., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 628, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935801

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    M., et al

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fu, G., May, E. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1317, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051846

    Madhusudhan, N. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051846

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    2013, in EAS Publications Series, Vol

    Magic, Z., Collet, R., & Asplund, M. 2013, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 63, EAS Publications Series, ed. G. Alecian, Y. Lebreton, O. Richard, & G. Vauclair, 367–371, doi: 10.1051/eas/1363041

    2013

  47. [55]

    M., MacDonald, R

    May, E. M., MacDonald, R. J., Bennett, K. A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad054f

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038280

    Modirrousta-Galian, D., Stelzer, B., Magaudda, E., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038280

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    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

  50. [58]

    E., Fortney, J

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

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca

    Nakayama, A., Ikoma, M., & Terada, N. 2022, ApJ, 937, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    2006, NumPy: A guide to NumPy, USA: Trelgol Publishing

    Oliphant, T. 2006, NumPy: A guide to NumPy, USA: Trelgol Publishing. http://www.numpy.org/

    2006

  53. [61]

    E., & Wu, Y

    Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 847, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa890a

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    2008, A&A, 479, 579, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078873

    Penz, T., & Micela, G. 2008, A&A, 479, 579, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078873

    2008 doi

  55. [63]

    M., Pickering, T

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Pickering, T. E., Laidler, V. G., et al. 2016, in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI, Vol. 9910, SPIE, 381–395

    2016

  56. [64]

    G., Schlichting, H

    Rogers, J. G., Schlichting, H. E., & Owen, J. E. 2023, ApJL, 947, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc86f

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    A., & Seager, S

    Rogers, L. A., & Seager, S. 2010, ApJ, 712, 974, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/974

    2010 doi

  58. [66]

    K., Liu, R., & Wang, A

    Rustamkulov, Z., Sing, D. K., Liu, R., & Wang, A. 2022, ApJL, 928, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5b6f

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    2011, A&A, 532, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116594

    Sanz-Forcada, J., Micela, G., Ribas, I., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116594

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    R., et al

    Scarsdale, N., Wogan, N., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07552, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07552

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    M., Cifuentes, C., et al

    Schweitzer, A., Passegger, V. M., Cifuentes, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834965

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708 16 Su´ arez Mascare˜ no, A., Rebolo, R., Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., & Esposito, M. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1441

    2006 doi

  63. [71]

    D., et al

    Taylor, J., Radica, M., Chatterjee, R. D., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf894

    2025 doi

  64. [72]

    E., Wallack, N

    Teske, J., Batalha, N. E., Wallack, N. L., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 249, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb975 Van Looveren, G., G¨ udel, M., Boro Saikia, S., &

    2025 doi

  65. [73]

    2024, A&A, 683, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348079

    Kislyakova, K. 2024, A&A, 683, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348079

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    2019, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.2.1, v1.2.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2560881

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Burovski, E., et al. 2019, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.2.1, v1.2.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2560881

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    L., Batalha, N

    Wallack, N. L., Batalha, N. E., Alderson, L., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3917

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, Photochem v0.6.2, v0.6.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14032108

    Wogan, N. 2024, Photochem v0.6.2, v0.6.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14032108

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    F., Batalha, N

    Wogan, N. F., Batalha, N. E., Zahnle, K. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2616

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    F., Catling, D

    Wogan, N. F., Catling, D. C., Zahnle, K. J., & Lupu, R. 2023, PSJ, 4, 169, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/aced83

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    J., & Catling, D

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

    2017 doi

  72. [80]

    Zeng, L., & Jacobsen, S. B. 2016, ApJ, 829, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/18

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.