Effect of Thermal Emission in Isotropic Scattering Atmospheres: An Invariant-Embedding Extension of Chandrasekhar's $H(\mu)$-Function

Fikret Anli; Manika Singla; Soumya Sengupta

arxiv: 2505.15319 · v2 · submitted 2025-05-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Effect of Thermal Emission in Isotropic Scattering Atmospheres: An Invariant-Embedding Extension of Chandrasekhar's H(μ)-Function

Soumya Sengupta , Manika Singla , Fikret Anli This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 14:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

keywords radiative transferthermal emissionChandrasekhar H-functioninvariant embeddingisotropic scatteringsemi-infinite atmospheresexoplanet atmospheresnumerical solutions

0 comments

The pith

Thermal emission enters the source function as an invariant term to extend Chandrasekhar's H(mu) into a new redistribution function M(mu).

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

The paper extends Chandrasekhar's H(mu) function, which governs diffuse reflection in semi-infinite isotropically scattering atmospheres under external illumination, by adding thermal emission from internal heat sources. Thermal emission is incorporated as a direction-independent additive contribution to the source function inside the invariant-embedding formalism, producing a generalized angular redistribution function M(mu) that depends on the emission coefficient U and the single-scattering albedo omega_0. The authors derive the associated nonlinear integral equations and compute high-precision numerical solutions for mu in [0,1], U below 0.7, and omega_0 below 1 using Gaussian quadrature. The new function reduces exactly to the classical H(mu) when thermal emission is absent. This matters for calculating emergent intensities from atmospheres on hot Jupiters, brown dwarfs, and irradiated exoplanets where re-radiated energy is significant.

Core claim

By embedding intrinsic thermal emission as an invariant contribution to the source function within the invariant-embedding formalism, a generalized angular redistribution function M(mu) is obtained. Its governing nonlinear integral equations are expressed in terms of mu, the thermal emission coefficient U(T)=B(T)/F, and the single-scattering albedo omega_0. These equations are solved numerically to high precision for mu in [0,1], U<0.7, and omega_0<1. In the limit of vanishing thermal emission the formulation recovers Chandrasekhar's classical H(mu) function.

What carries the argument

The generalized angular redistribution function M(mu,U,omega_0), which carries the thermal-emission contribution inside the invariant-embedding source function and replaces the classical H(mu) in the reflection problem.

If this is right

Numerical tables of M(mu) allow direct calculation of both reflected and thermally emitted light from the same atmosphere.
The model applies to the ultra-short-period exoplanet K2-137b in the 0.85-2.5 micron band accessible to JWST, HST, and ARIEL.
Re-radiated stellar energy is now included in the source function while preserving the invariant-embedding structure.
When the thermal coefficient U is set to zero the equations and solutions revert exactly to Chandrasekhar's original H(mu).

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same embedding technique could be adapted to finite-thickness layers or mildly anisotropic phase functions for broader planetary modeling.
Comparison of predicted spectra against JWST observations of ultra-hot Jupiters would provide a direct test of the numerical M(mu) values.
The approach may link to other invariant-embedding solutions for non-plane-parallel geometries in stellar and planetary atmospheres.

Load-bearing premise

The atmosphere is semi-infinite, scattering is purely isotropic, and thermal emission can be added as a simple direction-independent term in the source function without changing the scattering phase function.

What would settle it

A direct measurement or Monte-Carlo simulation of the emergent intensity from a known semi-infinite isotropic-scattering layer with a calibrated constant thermal source that deviates systematically from the intensities computed using the solved M(mu) tables would falsify the extension.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15319 by Fikret Anli, Manika Singla, Soumya Sengupta.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Here we have plotted the function M(µ) with respect to µ for a set of single scattering albedo ˜ω0 ranging from 0.0-0.95. Only for the plot 1(a) we have used the analytic expression given in eqn.(13) and for the remaining plots numerical values are used. In each plot, we vary the thermal emission co-efficient U within the limit of convergence as defined by the corollary (1.1). The dashed line in each plot … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Here we have shown the variation of M with respect to thermal emission co-efficient U. These figures are for three different single scattering albedo values ˜ω0=0.1 (low scattering), 0.4(moderate scattering), 0.7(high scattering). In each figure we plotted three different direction cosines 0.0 (tangential to the plane), 0.5 and 1.0 (perpendicular to the plane). It is clear that with increasing U the M-valu… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Here the variation of M is studied with respect to ˜ω0. These figures are for three different U values 0, 0.2, 0.4 respectively and the variation of µ is same as in fig. 2.It should be noted that left most figure actually represents the H function due to U=0 (see text) Now the integral theorems satisfied by H(µ) function can be found in (Chandrasekhar 1960, 1947). Also the moments of H-function are defined… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Thermal emission coefficient U as a function of wavelength for the exoplanet K2-137b using the formulation eqn.(19). The plot illustrates three radiative regimes: a scattering-dominated regime (U → 0 ), a transitional region where both thermal emission and scattering contribute (0 ≤ U < 0.7), and an emission-dominated regime (U > 0.7). These divisions are essential for identifying spectral regions where th… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Chandrasekhar's H(mu)-function forms the foundation of radiative transfer theory for semi-infinite, isotropically scattering atmospheres under external illumination. However, the classical formulation does not account for thermal emission from internal heat sources, which is essential in many astrophysical environments, including hot Jupiters, brown dwarfs, and strongly irradiated exoplanets, where re-radiated stellar energy significantly alters the emergent intensity. To address this limitation, we extend Chandrasekhar's diffuse reflection framework by incorporating intrinsic thermal emission within the invariant-embedding formalism. In this approach, thermal emission enters as an embedded invariant contribution to the source function, leading to a generalized angular redistribution function M(mu). We derive the governing non-linear integral equations for M(mu) and express them in terms of the direction cosine mu, the thermal emission coefficient U(T)=B(T)/F, and the single-scattering albedo omega_0. High-precision numerical values of M(mu,U,omega_0) are computed for mu in [0,1], U<0.7, and omega_0<1 using a stable iterative scheme based on Gaussian quadrature. In the limit of vanishing thermal emission, the formulation reduces to Chandrasekhar's classical H(mu)-function, validating the approach. As an application, we consider the ultra-short-period exoplanet K2-137b and identify the wavelength range 0.85--2.5 micron where the model is most applicable, corresponding to the capabilities of JWST, HST, and ARIEL.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

A useful numerical extension of the H-function for constant thermal emission, but limited by the depth-independent assumption.

read the letter

The one or two things to know are that the authors have extended the invariant-embedding treatment of Chandrasekhar's H-function to include thermal emission as a direction-independent additive term in the source function, resulting in a new M(mu) function solved numerically, and that this is positioned for modeling hot Jupiters where both stellar reflection and internal heat matter. They do well in setting up the nonlinear integral equations for M(mu, U, omega0) and demonstrating that the system reverts to the standard H(mu) equations at U=0. The use of a stable iterative method with Gaussian quadrature to generate values across the parameter space is a concrete contribution that could serve as a reference for others doing similar calculations. The soft spots are mainly around applicability. The formulation assumes U is constant with optical depth, but the stress-test note is right that in radiative equilibrium the thermal emission varies with depth, which would require modifying the embedding to include additional integral contributions from different layers. The paper sticks to fixed U less than 0.7 and does not explore or validate the depth-dependent version. There is also no mention of comparisons to independent radiative transfer solvers or existing thermal emission models, so the numerical accuracy rests on the internal consistency and the classical limit. The scope remains limited to isotropic scattering in semi-infinite media. This is for radiative transfer experts in the exoplanet and brown dwarf community who want an analytic-style tool rather than full numerical simulations for cases with both illumination and internal heat. Someone already using H-function tables would see the value in the generalized version for quick estimates in the 0.85 to 2.5 micron range. It deserves a serious referee because the extension is logically consistent and the numerics are described in enough detail to be checked, even though the constant-U restriction will likely be the main point of discussion.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends Chandrasekhar's H(μ)-function to incorporate thermal emission in semi-infinite isotropically scattering atmospheres using invariant-embedding. It introduces the generalized function M(μ, U, ω₀), derives the corresponding nonlinear integral equations, and computes numerical values via an iterative Gaussian quadrature scheme for μ ∈ [0,1], U < 0.7, ω₀ < 1. The formulation reduces to the classical H-function at U = 0 and is applied to the exoplanet K2-137b for identifying relevant wavelength ranges for JWST, HST, and ARIEL observations.

Significance. If the derivation holds, this provides a valuable tool for radiative transfer calculations in atmospheres with internal thermal sources, such as hot Jupiters and brown dwarfs. The consistency check with the U=0 limit and the focus on observable wavelength ranges for current and upcoming telescopes add to its potential utility in exoplanet atmosphere modeling.

major comments (2)

[§2 (Derivation of the integral equations)] The embedding of thermal emission as a direction-independent term in the source function leading to the equations for M(μ) assumes U is constant with optical depth. This assumption is load-bearing for the invariance property. However, for the applications to hot Jupiters like K2-137b under radiative-convective equilibrium, the Planck function varies with τ, which would require additional integral terms coupling different depths in the governing equations for M(μ). The paper provides solutions only for fixed U < 0.7 without tests for depth-dependent U(τ).
[Numerical implementation (abstract and §4)] The abstract states that high-precision numerical values are obtained via a stable iterative scheme, but lacks details on convergence criteria, error analysis, or comparisons with independent methods beyond the U=0 reduction. This undermines confidence in the accuracy of M(μ, U, ω₀) for U > 0.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The definition U(T)=B(T)/F could be expanded to clarify if U is assumed constant or how it is computed from temperature structure.
[Application section] The identification of the 0.85--2.5 micron range for K2-137b would benefit from a brief justification or reference to the atmospheric model used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our work. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§2 (Derivation of the integral equations)] The embedding of thermal emission as a direction-independent term in the source function leading to the equations for M(μ) assumes U is constant with optical depth. This assumption is load-bearing for the invariance property. However, for the applications to hot Jupiters like K2-137b under radiative-convective equilibrium, the Planck function varies with τ, which would require additional integral terms coupling different depths in the governing equations for M(μ). The paper provides solutions only for fixed U < 0.7 without tests for depth-dependent U(τ).

Authors: We agree that the derivation assumes U is independent of optical depth; this constancy is required to maintain the invariance property central to the embedding method. For atmospheres in full radiative-convective equilibrium where the Planck function B(T(τ)) varies strongly with depth, the governing equations would indeed acquire additional depth-coupling integrals. Our formulation is therefore an approximation valid when thermal emission can be treated as roughly uniform over the relevant optical depths. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit discussion of this assumption, its range of validity, and a note that depth-dependent U(τ) extensions are left for future work. We retain the constant-U solutions as the core contribution of the present paper. revision: partial
Referee: [Numerical implementation (abstract and §4)] The abstract states that high-precision numerical values are obtained via a stable iterative scheme, but lacks details on convergence criteria, error analysis, or comparisons with independent methods beyond the U=0 reduction. This undermines confidence in the accuracy of M(μ, U, ω₀) for U > 0.

Authors: We accept this criticism. The revised §4 will specify the convergence criterion (maximum relative change in M between iterations < 10^{-8}), the quadrature error bounds, and additional validation tests consisting of direct comparisons against numerical solutions of the underlying radiative-transfer equation for several (U, ω₀) pairs with U > 0. These additions will be reflected in an updated abstract as well. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation extends Chandrasekhar via explicit additive term and solves resulting equations

full rationale

The paper begins with Chandrasekhar's established H(μ) for semi-infinite isotropic scattering and explicitly augments the invariant-embedding source function with a direction-independent thermal term U(T) = B(T)/F. This produces new nonlinear integral equations for the generalized redistribution function M(μ, U, ω₀). The equations are solved numerically by iteration with Gaussian quadrature, and the U = 0 limit recovers the classical H(μ) as an internal consistency check. No parameter is fitted to data and then relabeled a prediction, no load-bearing result rests on self-citation, and the governing equations are derived directly from the augmented source function rather than being tautological with the output. The depth-independent-U assumption is a modeling choice whose validity for hot Jupiters can be tested externally; it does not render the mathematical steps circular by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the semi-infinite isotropic-scattering assumption and the representation of thermal emission as a constant additive source; no new particles or forces are introduced, but the numerical solution introduces discretization parameters whose effect on accuracy is not quantified in the abstract.

free parameters (2)

U(T)
Thermal emission coefficient B(T)/F treated as an input parameter varied up to 0.7; its value is chosen to represent different internal-heat regimes rather than derived from first principles.
omega_0
Single-scattering albedo varied below 1; standard parameter but fitted or chosen per atmosphere model.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Atmosphere is semi-infinite and scattering is isotropic
Invoked to justify use of the invariant-embedding method and reduction to Chandrasekhar's H-function.

invented entities (1)

M(mu, U, omega_0) no independent evidence
purpose: Generalized angular redistribution function that incorporates thermal emission
New function defined by the integral equations; independent evidence would be comparison against full Monte-Carlo radiative-transfer simulations, which is not reported in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5832 in / 1585 out tokens · 33371 ms · 2026-05-22T14:06:01.047922+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

M(μ) = 1 + 2U(T)M(μ)μ log(1+1/μ) + (ω₀/2)μ M(μ) ∫ M(μ′)/(μ+μ′) dμ′ (Eq. 2); Theorems 1–2 on moments Aₙ and R
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Reduction to Chandrasekhar H(μ) when U→0; numerical values for U<0.7, ω₀<1

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

2021, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 272, 107764

Anlı, F., & ¨Ozt¨ urk, H. 2021, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 272, 107764

work page 2021
[2]

Batygin, K., & Stevenson, D. J. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 714, L238

work page 2010
[3]

1967, Icarus, 7, 365

Bellman, R., Kagiwada, H., Kalaba, R., & Ueno, S. 1967, Icarus, 7, 365

work page 1967
[4]

1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), 126, 283

Bosma, P., & De Rooij, W. 1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), 126, 283

work page 1983
[5]

1947, The Astrophysical Journal, 105, 164 —

Chandrasekhar, S. 1947, The Astrophysical Journal, 105, 164 —. 1960, Radiative Transfer, Dover Books on Intermediate and Advanced Mathematics (Dover Publications). https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CK3HDRwCT5YC

work page 1947
[6]

Chandrasekhar, S., & Breen, F. H. 1947, The Astrophysical Journal, 106, 143 —. 1948, Astrophysical Journal, 107, 216

work page 1947
[7]

Numerical evaluation of Chandrasekhar's H-function, its first and second differential coefficients, its pole and moments from the new form for plane parallel scattering atmosphere in radiative transfer

Das, R. N., & Bera, R. 2007, Numerical evaluation of Chandrasekhar’s H-function, its first and second differential coefficients, its pole and moments from the new form for plane parallel scattering atmosphere in radiative transfer, arXiv preprint arXiv:0711.3336

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[8]

1986, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 13, 623

Dubus, A., Devooght, J., & Dehaes, J.-C. 1986, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 13, 623

work page 1986
[9]

2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 520, A27

Guillot, T. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 520, A27

work page 2010
[10]

Hansen, B. M. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 179, 484

work page 2008
[11]

R., Millman, K

Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020
[12]

2015, Computer Physics Communications, 196, 416 —

Jablonski, A. 2015, Computer Physics Communications, 196, 416 —. 2019, Computer Physics Communications, 235, 489

work page 2015
[13]

D., & Youdin, A

Komacek, T. D., & Youdin, A. N. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 94

work page 2017
[14]

2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 25

Madhusudhan, N., & Burrows, A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 25

work page 2012
[15]

1978, Stellar atmospheres, San Francisco: WH Freeman

Mihalas, D. 1978, Stellar atmospheres, San Francisco: WH Freeman

work page 1978
[16]

2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 126 —

Sengupta, S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 126 —. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 139

work page 2021
[17]

2023, New Astronomy, 100, 101987

Sengupta, S., & Sengupta, S. 2023, New Astronomy, 100, 101987

work page 2023
[18]

2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 155

Singla, M., Chakrabarty, A., & Sengupta, S. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 155

work page 2023
[19]

2023, New Astronomy, 102, 102024

Singla, M., & Sengupta, S. 2023, New Astronomy, 102, 102024

work page 2023
[20]

2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 5523

Smith, A., Cabrera, J., Csizmadia, S., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 5523

work page 2018
[21]

2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 1 Vigan` o, D., Sengupta, S., Soriano-Guerrero, C., et al

Tinetti, G., Encrenaz, T., & Coustenis, A. 2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 1 Vigan` o, D., Sengupta, S., Soriano-Guerrero, C., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 701, A8

work page 2013
[22]

E., et al

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

work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

[1] [1]

2021, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 272, 107764

Anlı, F., & ¨Ozt¨ urk, H. 2021, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 272, 107764

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Batygin, K., & Stevenson, D. J. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 714, L238

work page 2010

[3] [3]

1967, Icarus, 7, 365

Bellman, R., Kagiwada, H., Kalaba, R., & Ueno, S. 1967, Icarus, 7, 365

work page 1967

[4] [4]

1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), 126, 283

Bosma, P., & De Rooij, W. 1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), 126, 283

work page 1983

[5] [5]

1947, The Astrophysical Journal, 105, 164 —

Chandrasekhar, S. 1947, The Astrophysical Journal, 105, 164 —. 1960, Radiative Transfer, Dover Books on Intermediate and Advanced Mathematics (Dover Publications). https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CK3HDRwCT5YC

work page 1947

[6] [6]

Chandrasekhar, S., & Breen, F. H. 1947, The Astrophysical Journal, 106, 143 —. 1948, Astrophysical Journal, 107, 216

work page 1947

[7] [7]

Numerical evaluation of Chandrasekhar's H-function, its first and second differential coefficients, its pole and moments from the new form for plane parallel scattering atmosphere in radiative transfer

Das, R. N., & Bera, R. 2007, Numerical evaluation of Chandrasekhar’s H-function, its first and second differential coefficients, its pole and moments from the new form for plane parallel scattering atmosphere in radiative transfer, arXiv preprint arXiv:0711.3336

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

[8] [8]

1986, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 13, 623

Dubus, A., Devooght, J., & Dehaes, J.-C. 1986, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 13, 623

work page 1986

[9] [9]

2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 520, A27

Guillot, T. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 520, A27

work page 2010

[10] [10]

Hansen, B. M. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 179, 484

work page 2008

[11] [11]

R., Millman, K

Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

[12] [12]

2015, Computer Physics Communications, 196, 416 —

Jablonski, A. 2015, Computer Physics Communications, 196, 416 —. 2019, Computer Physics Communications, 235, 489

work page 2015

[13] [13]

D., & Youdin, A

Komacek, T. D., & Youdin, A. N. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 94

work page 2017

[14] [14]

2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 25

Madhusudhan, N., & Burrows, A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 25

work page 2012

[15] [15]

1978, Stellar atmospheres, San Francisco: WH Freeman

Mihalas, D. 1978, Stellar atmospheres, San Francisco: WH Freeman

work page 1978

[16] [16]

2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 126 —

Sengupta, S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 126 —. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 139

work page 2021

[17] [17]

2023, New Astronomy, 100, 101987

Sengupta, S., & Sengupta, S. 2023, New Astronomy, 100, 101987

work page 2023

[18] [18]

2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 155

Singla, M., Chakrabarty, A., & Sengupta, S. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 155

work page 2023

[19] [19]

2023, New Astronomy, 102, 102024

Singla, M., & Sengupta, S. 2023, New Astronomy, 102, 102024

work page 2023

[20] [20]

2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 5523

Smith, A., Cabrera, J., Csizmadia, S., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 5523

work page 2018

[21] [21]

2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 1 Vigan` o, D., Sengupta, S., Soriano-Guerrero, C., et al

Tinetti, G., Encrenaz, T., & Coustenis, A. 2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 1 Vigan` o, D., Sengupta, S., Soriano-Guerrero, C., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 701, A8

work page 2013

[22] [22]

E., et al

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

work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020