Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

A Measurement of the Water Abundance in the Atmosphere of the Hot Jupiter WASP-43b with High-resolution Cross-correlation Spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Four transits of the hot Jupiter WASP-43b, observed with the high-resolution IGRINS spectrograph, reveal water vapor in the planet's limb at a mixing ratio near 0.6% and set a 2-sigma upper limit of C/O < 0.95 on its carbon-to-oxygen ratio.

desk verdict A defensible but marginal H2O measurement for WASP-43b whose C/O upper limit is internally unsupported and should be removed or re-derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17923 v1 pith:W34GI6FP submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.EP

Dare Bartelt , Megan Weiner Mansfield , Michael R. Line , Vivien Parmentier , Luis Welbanks , Elspeth K. H. Lee , Jorge Sanchez , Arjun B. Savel
show 3 more authors
Peter C. B. Smith Emily Rauscher Joost P. Wardenier
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exoplanetatmosphereshotJupiterWASP-43bwaterabundancehigh-resolutionspectroscopycross-correlationC/Oratioatmosphericretrieval
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

Four transits of the hot Jupiter WASP-43b, observed at high spectral resolution with the IGRINS spectrograph on Gemini-S, yield a water-vapor absorption signal in the planet's limb. From the signal the authors retrieve a water abundance of log10(H2O) = −2.24 (+0.57/−0.48), a mixing ratio of roughly 6 parts per thousand, and a 2-sigma upper limit on the carbon-to-oxygen ratio of C/O < 0.95. The result matters because water and the C/O ratio are tracers of where and how a giant planet formed, and a C/O below 0.95 rules out an extremely carbon-rich atmosphere. The measurements are consistent with earlier HST and JWST observations of the same planet.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on high-resolution cross-correlation spectroscopy: individual molecular absorption lines in the 1.45–2.45 µm spectra are separated from stellar and telluric features by subtracting a set of orthogonal components, and the residual spectra are cross-correlated against synthetic templates containing only one molecule at a time. A retrieval then fits the same data with a forward model that assumes an isothermal atmosphere with constant-with-height abundances of H2O, CO, CO2, and CH4 plus a single cloud-top pressure, using a nested-sampling likelihood to deliver abundance posteriors and upper limits. The water detection and the bounds on the carbon-bearing species together produce the C/O upper limit.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the IGRINS transits with a 3D retrieval that allows altitude-dependent chemistry and inhomogeneous clouds; if the water abundance shifts by more than the quoted ±0.5 dex, the constant-abundance model is falsified. A phase-resolved map of the Vsys offset across the transit would also test whether the +1.7 km/s offset is a real dynamical feature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to detect H2O in the transmission spectrum of WASP-43b by cross-correlating four nights of IGRINS spectra with a synthetic template, reaching a detection signal-to-noise ratio of 3.51. It reports that CH4 and CO2 are not detected, CO shows only a weak signal, and a Bayesian retrieval on the combined data returns a water volume mixing ratio of log10(H2O) = −2.24 (+0.57/−0.48), an unconstrained CO abundance, upper limits of log10(CO2) < −2.78 and log10(CH4) < −5.89, and a 2-sigma upper limit of C/O < 0.95. The paper further notes that the H2O cross-correlation peak is offset by ΔKp ≈ −21 km/s and ΔVsys ≈ +1.7 km/s relative to literature values, an offset pattern partially aligned with predictions from 3D atmospheric models.

Load-bearing premise

The retrieval assumes the limb is isothermal, chemically uniform with height, and covered by a single cloud deck; strong vertical gradients or patchy clouds would bias the reported water abundance and C/O limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Water vapor is present in the limb of WASP-43b at a mixing ratio near $10^{-2.24}$, roughly 0.6%.
  • The atmosphere is not extremely carbon-rich: the carbon-to-oxygen ratio is below 0.95 at 2-sigma confidence.
  • The retrieved water abundance agrees within uncertainties with previous HST and JWST results, supporting the view that transmission and emission spectra probe different atmospheric layers.
  • The non-detections of CH4 and CO2, with only a weak CO signal, are consistent with a near-solar composition rather than a carbon-dominated one.
  • Additional data that confirms the tentative CO signal would bring the transmission and dayside emission measurements of WASP-43b into closer agreement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The unexplained positive Vsys offset could point to day–night winds or patchy limb clouds; phase-resolved observations across transit would test whether the offset is a real dynamical signature.
  • The retrieved water abundance, obtained with an isothermal constant-abundance model, is best read as a limb-averaged value; comparing it with JWST emission retrievals of the same planet could reveal vertical abundance gradients.
  • The same stacking-and-retrieval pipeline could be applied to other hot Jupiters with archival IGRINS transits to build a uniform sample of water abundances and C/O upper limits for planet-formation studies.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports high-resolution cross-correlation spectroscopy (HRCCS) of four transits of WASP-43b observed with IGRINS. The authors detect H2O at an SNR of 3.51 in the combined data, do not detect CO, CO2, or CH4, and use a retrieval to derive log10(H2O) = -2.24 (+0.57/-0.48) with upper limits log10(CO2) < -2.78 and log10(CH4) < -5.89. From these they quote a 2-sigma upper limit C/O < 0.95 and argue consistency with previous HST, JWST, and CRIRES+ results.

Significance. If the water-abundance measurement is taken at face value, the paper provides a useful independent transmission-spectrum constraint on WASP-43b that is consistent with several prior studies and demonstrates the application of the Sc-CHIMERA/Line et al. retrieval framework to IGRINS data. The comparison to published abundances, including the discussion of transmission versus emission geometry, is informative. However, the C/O upper limit quoted in the abstract and conclusions is not supported by the retrieval results as presented, and the modest detection SNR with several analysis choices optimized on the data makes the detection claim require additional robustness checks.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 5] The retrieval text states that the CO abundance was 'essentially unconstrained' and Figure 5 shows a flat CO posterior, yet the same paragraph quotes a 2-sigma upper limit C/O < 0.95 computed from the retrieved water abundance and upper limits on carbon-bearing species. In a hot-Jupiter atmosphere CO is the primary carbon carrier and also an oxygen carrier; an unconstrained CO abundance leaves the carbon budget unbounded. The C/O limit must either be derived from the joint posterior samples, which would require a constrained CO posterior and would contradict 'essentially unconstrained', or it must be removed or reframed as a conditional limit. As written this is internally inconsistent and load-bearing because C/O < 0.95 appears in the abstract, Section 5, and Section 6.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 3] The combined H2O detection has SNR 3.51, just above the adopted 3.0 threshold, and the peak is offset by Delta-Kp = -21 km/s and Delta-Vsys = +1.696 km/s from the literature values. The authors justify the Kp offset with Wardenier et al. (2023) models but do not quantify the statistical significance of the offset or the trial factor from the Kp-Vsys grid. Because the number of SVD components was chosen to maximize the detection SNR (Section 2) and night 4 was excluded after it showed no detection (Section 3), the false-alarm probability of the 3.51 SNR should be established with injection-recovery or permutation tests that include these selection steps. The current text reports an injection test for the SVD choice but not for the full detection pipeline.
  3. [Section 4] The retrieval assumes an isothermal atmosphere with constant-with-altitude abundances and a single cloud-top pressure, justified by the weak signal. The authors do not test whether the retrieved log10(H2O) or the C/O upper limit are biased when these assumptions are relaxed, for example with a two-temperature profile or a water abundance gradient. Since Section 5 interprets differences from emission-spectrum results in terms of limb/dayside geometry, a short sensitivity test with a more flexible parameterization would substantially strengthen the abundance claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] The introduction says the conclusions and future work are given in Section 7, but the paper has no Section 7; the conclusions appear in Section 6.
  2. [Table 2] The table caption states that Weaver et al. (2020) used transmission spectra, but the table classifies that entry as 'Emission'; the text should be corrected to match the table.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption refers to components removed by 'PCA', while Section 2 describes the method as singular value decomposition; the terminology should be made consistent.
  4. [References] The reference list contains two identical entries for Line et al. (2021); the duplicate should be removed.
  5. [Figure 3 caption] There is a typo: 'tenative' should be 'tentative'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the H2O abundance and C/O limit are direct retrieval products, and the self-cited methods are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational rather than predictive: IGRINS spectra are reduced, cross-correlated against forward models to claim a 3.51-sigma H2O detection, and then a nested-sampling retrieval fits isothermal constant-abundance models to obtain log10(H2O) = -2.24+0.57/-0.48. The water abundance is a fitted parameter, not a quantity derived from an input by construction, so there is no self-definitional or fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. The C/O < 0.95 limit is a transformation of the retrieved posteriors; although the claim that it follows from 'upper limits on the carbon-bearing species' while CO is 'essentially unconstrained' is internally questionable, this is a correctness or support issue, not a circularity, because no equation or fitted value is being relabeled as an independent result. Self-citations to Line et al. (2021) and Weiner Mansfield et al. (2024) provide the retrieval and cross-correlation methods, but they are not invoked as evidence for the target abundance, and the findings are explicitly compared with independent HST/WFC3, CRIRES+, and JWST/MIRI measurements. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input via self-citation or definition. The apparent tension between the unconstrained CO posterior and the quoted C/O upper limit should be examined as a statistical robustness question, but it does not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The retrieval fits eight atmospheric and kinematic parameters to the same data; the measured water abundance and the C/O upper limit are outputs of these fits, not independent predictions. The analysis also depends on several domain assumptions about line lists, template models, SVD removal, and the decision to exclude night 4.

free parameters (10)
  • H2O volume mixing ratio (log10) = -2.24 +0.57/-0.48
    Central retrieved abundance from the transmission spectrum; primary result.
  • CO volume mixing ratio (log10) = unconstrained
    Retrieved but essentially unconstrained; posterior peak consistent with previous studies.
  • CO2 volume mixing ratio (log10) = < -2.78 (2 sigma upper limit)
    Upper limit from retrieval, used to compute C/O upper limit.
  • CH4 volume mixing ratio (log10) = < -5.89 (2 sigma upper limit)
    Upper limit from retrieval, used to compute C/O upper limit.
  • Isothermal temperature T0 = not reported in text
    Free parameter in the retrieval; correlated with abundances and cloud pressure.
  • Cloud-top pressure Pc = not reported in text
    Free parameter in the retrieval; degeneracy with H2O abundance noted in Section 5.
  • Systemic velocity Vsys = not reported
    Free parameter in retrieval; H2O CCF peak offset +1.696 km/s from literature.
  • Planet orbital velocity Kp = not reported
    Free parameter in retrieval; H2O CCF peak offset -21 km/s from literature.
  • Reference planet radius scale factor = not reported
    Free parameter in retrieval, scales model radius.
  • Number of SVD components removed per night = 5 (nights 1,3,4,5), 6 (night 2)
    Chosen per night to maximize detection SNR; can inflate detection significance.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The molecular line lists used (POKAZATEL H2O, HITEMP CO/CH4, ExoMol CO2, Karman CIA) are accurate at hot Jupiter temperatures.
    The CCF and retrieval assume these line positions and strengths; line list errors would bias both detection and abundance. Invoked in Sections 3 and 4.
  • domain assumption The Sc-CHIMERA solar-composition, radiative-convective-thermochemical-equilibrium model provides suitable template spectra for cross-correlation.
    Templates are generated from this model with each searched gas at 10^-3 VMR; template mismatch affects CCF SNR and velocity offsets. Section 3.
  • domain assumption SVD/PCA removal of stellar and telluric signals does not significantly remove the planetary signal.
    The optimal number of SVs is chosen to maximize detection SNR; if SVD removes planetary signal, detection and abundance are biased. Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper Night 4's lack of detection is caused by high humidity, justifying its exclusion from the combined analysis.
    Exclusion is post hoc, based on no clear detection and higher humidity, and is assumed not to bias the combined measurement. Section 3.
  • domain assumption The limb atmosphere is adequately represented by an isothermal, constant-with-altitude abundance model with a single cloud-top pressure.
    The retrieval uses this simplified parameterization because the weak signal precludes a more complex T-P profile; if wrong, the retrieved H2O abundance and C/O limit are biased. Section 4.
  • domain assumption The Brogi & Line (2019) log-likelihood framework correctly models the cross-correlation signal.
    All CCF SNRs and retrieval likelihoods rely on this framework. Sections 3 and 4.
  • domain assumption Literature values of Vsys and Kp from Gaia and Bonomo et al. are accurate enough to validate detections.
    Detection requires the CCF peak to appear near these values. Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Measurement of the Water Abundance in the Atmosphere of the Hot Jupiter WASP-43b with High-resolution Cross-correlation Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W34GI6FP

@misc{pith2026241117923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Measurement of the Water Abundance in the Atmosphere of the Hot Jupiter WASP-43b with High-resolution Cross-correlation Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W34GI6FP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17923}
}
abstract

Measuring the abundances of carbon- and oxygen-bearing molecules has been a primary focus in studying the atmospheres of hot Jupiters, as doing so can help constrain the carbon-to-oxygen (C/O) ratio. The C/O ratio can help reveal the evolution and formation pathways of hot Jupiters and provide a strong understanding of the atmospheric composition. In the last decade, high-resolution spectral analyses have become increasingly useful in measuring precise abundances of several carbon- and oxygen-bearing molecules. This allows for a more precise constraint of the C/O ratio. We present four transits of the hot Jupiter WASP-43b observed between 1.45 $-$ 2.45 $\mu$m with the high-resolution Immersion GRating InfraRed Spectrometer (IGRINS) on the Gemini-S telescope. We detected H$_2$O at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 3.51. We tested for the presence of CH$_4$, CO, and CO$_2$, but we did not detect these carbon-bearing species. We ran a retrieval for all four molecules and obtained a water abundance of $\log_{10}(\text{H}_2\text{O}) = -2.24^{+0.57}_{-0.48}$. We obtained an upper limit on the C/O ratio of C/O $<$ 0.95. These findings are consistent with previous observations from the Hubble Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Progressive subtraction of SVs from the spectra obtained on night 5. Five components were removed by PCA, the optimal value for night 5. In the first panel, tellurics, stellar features, and the shape of the instrument throughput dominate the data. As components are progressively subtracted, the non-planetary signals are removed, and the planet’s signal is hidden in the remaining noise. 3. CROSS-CORRELATION To determ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The humidities during each transit phase during night 1 (blue), night 2 (orange), night 3 (green), night 4 (red) and night 5 (purple). The higher humidity on night 4 resulted in a weaker detection of H2O. Therefore, we excluded it from the analysis. We combined four nights of data by per￾forming the cross-correlation for each night in￾dividually and summing the cross-correlation strengths. We adopt the cross-correla… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cross-correlation SNRs as a function of systemic velocity (Vsys) and Keplerian velocity (Kp) for H2O, CH4, CO2, and CO from the four nights combined. We detect H2O at an SNR of 3.51 but do not detect any carbon-bearing species, although CO may be a tenative detection. The white dashed lines represent the Vsys and Kp values of WASP-43b from the literature (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018; Bonomo et al. 2017). The red … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cross-correlation SNRs as a function of systemic velocity (Vsys) and Keplerian velocity (Kp) for water, for Night 1, Night 2, Night 3, and Night 5. The white dashed lines represent the Vsys and Kp values of WASP-43b from the literature (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018; …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior distributions from the retrieval on the atmospheric composition of WASP-43b. Off￾diagonal plots show 2D posterior probabilities for pairs of parameters, with 1, 2, and 3σ intervals shaded in dark, medium, and light blue, respectively. On-diagonal plots show m…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Water volume mixing ratios for WASP-43b, measured through direct observations. The circular points indicate that the measurement was from a transmission spectrum, whereas the square points indicate that the measurement was from emission spectra. References are listed i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Crouzet, N., Cubillos, P

    Bell, T. J., Crouzet, N., Cubillos, P. E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02230-x

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02230-x 2024

  2. [2]

    Birkby, J. L. 2018, Exoplanet Atmospheres at High Spectral Resolution. https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.04617

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    2014, ApJ, 781, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/116

    Blecic, J., Harrington, J., Madhusudhan, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/116

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/2/116 2014

  4. [4]

    S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Desidera, S., Benatti, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629882

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629882 2017

  5. [5]

    Brogi, M., & Line, M. R. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaffd3

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaffd3 2019

  6. [6]

    R., et al

    Brogi, M., Emeka-Okafor, V., Line, M. R., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acaf5c

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acaf5c 2023

  7. [7]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

  8. [8]

    Blake, G. A. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 943, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca614

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca614 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    J., Madhusudhan, N., & Holmberg, M

    Cheverall, C. J., Madhusudhan, N., & Holmberg, M. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad648

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    K., de Mooij, E

    Deibert, E. K., de Mooij, E. J. W., Jayawardhana, R., et al. 2023, ExoGemS High-Resolution Transmission Spectroscopy of W ASP-76b with GRACES. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16738

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Fanson, J., Bernstein, R., Ashby, D., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12182, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IX, ed. H. K. Marshall, J. Spyromilio, & T. Usuda, 121821C, doi: 10.1117/12.2631694 Gaia Collabor...

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2019, AJ, 158, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4efc

    Piette, A. 2019, AJ, 158, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4efc

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Line, M

    Gharib-Nezhad, E., Iyer, A. R., Line, M. R., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abf504

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Gordon, I

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

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    R., Collier Cameron, A., et al

    Hellier, C., Anderson, D. R., Collier Cameron, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117081

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Irwin, P. G. J., Parmentier, V., Taylor, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa238

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    E., van der Avoird, A., et al

    Karman, T., Gordon, I. E., van der Avoird, A., et al. 2019, Icarus, 328, 160, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.02.034

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    L., D´ esert, J.-M., et al

    Kreidberg, L., Bean, J. L., D´ esert, J.-M., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/2/l27

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    2016, plp: v2.1 alpha 3, v2.1-alpha.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.56067

    Lee, J.-J., & Gullikson, K. 2016, plp: v2.1 alpha 3, v2.1-alpha.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.56067

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, A&A, 678, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347151

    Lesjak, F., Nortmann, L., Yan, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347151

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    E., Rothman, L

    Li, G., Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., et al. 2015, ApJS, 216, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/15

    2015 doi

  14. [23]

    R., Brogi, M., Bean, J

    Line, M. R., Brogi, M., Bean, J. L., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 580–584, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03912-6

    2021 doi

  15. [24]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/758/1/36 Molli` ere, P., Molyarova, T., Bitsch, B., et al

    Madhusudhan, N. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/758/1/36 Molli` ere, P., Molyarova, T., Bitsch, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6a56

    2012 doi

  16. [25]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 41, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/41

    Henning, T., & Benneke, B. 2016, ApJ, 832, 41, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/41

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    Morello, G., Danielski, C., Dickens, D., Tremblin, P., & Lagage, P. O. 2019, AJ, 157, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab14e2 ¨Oberg, K. I., Murray-Clay, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, ApJL, 743, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L16

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    2023, Contemporary Physics, 64, 47, doi: 10.1080/00107514.2023.2266921

    Padovani, P., & Cirasuolo, M. 2023, Contemporary Physics, 64, 47, doi: 10.1080/00107514.2023.2266921

    2023

  19. [28]

    L., Kyuberis, A

    Polyansky, O. L., Kyuberis, A. A., Zobov, N. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1877 11

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    S., Gordon, I

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

    2010 doi

  21. [30]

    D., & Bitsch, B

    Schneider, A. D., & Bitsch, B. 2021a, A&A, 654, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039640 —. 2021b, A&A, 654, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141096

    doi

  22. [31]

    K., Le, H

    Sim, C. K., Le, H. A. N., Pak, S., et al. 2014, Advances in Space Research, 53, 1647, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2014.02.024

    2014 doi

  23. [32]

    Snellen, I. A. G., de Kok, R. J., de Mooij, E. J. W., & Albrecht, S. 2010, Nature, 465, 1049, doi: 10.1038/nature09111

    2010 doi

  24. [33]

    B., Line, M

    Stevenson, K. B., Line, M. R., Bean, J. L., et al. 2017a, AJ, 153, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/68 —. 2017b, AJ, 153, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/68

    doi

  25. [34]

    M., Zapatero Osorio, M

    Tabernero, H. M., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Allart, R., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 646, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039511

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    P., Zingales, T., et al

    Tsiaras, A., Waldmann, I. P., Zingales, T., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaf75

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    Lee, E. K. H. 2023, Modelling the effect of 3D temperature and chemistry on the cross-correlation signal of transiting ultra-hot Jupiters: A study of 5 chemical species on W ASP-76b. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.04931

    2023 arXiv

  28. [37]

    P., Parmentier, V., Line, M

    Wardenier, J. P., Parmentier, V., Line, M. R., et al. 2024, Phase-resolving the absorption signatures of water and carbon monoxide in the atmosphere of the ultra-hot Jupiter W ASP-121b with GEMINI-S/IGRINS. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09641

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    C., L´ opez-Morales, M., Espinoza, N., et al

    Weaver, I. C., L´ opez-Morales, M., Espinoza, N., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab55da Weiner Mansfield, M., Line, M. R., Wardenier, J. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.09769, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.09769

    2020 doi arXiv

  30. [39]

    F., et al

    Welbanks, L., Madhusudhan, N., Allard, N. F., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5a89

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    Yang, J., Hammond, M., Piette, A. A. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1427

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    N., Mellor, T

    Yurchenko, S. N., Mellor, T. M., Freedman, R. S., & Tennyson, J. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1874

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.