Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Evolution of atmospheric escape in close-in giant planets and their associated Ly$\alpha$ and H$\alpha$ transit predictions

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A close-in Saturn-mass giant can lose 20% of its mass to escape, while a Jupiter twin loses at most 1%.

desk verdict Useful evolutionary escape predictions with a real caveat: the headline 20% and 1.2-Gyr boundary are lower limits, not robust values. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03510 v2 pith:E6KHERSZ submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

A. Allan , A. A. Vidotto (Trinity College Dublin) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords atmosphericescapehydrodynamicLy-alphatransitsH-alphaNeptuniandeserthotJupitersplanetevolutionEUVirradiation
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

The paper simulates how atmospheric escape evolves for $0.3$ and $1$ Jupiter-mass planets orbiting a solar twin at $0.045$ au from ages $10$ Myr to $5$ Gyr, then turns the simulated outflows into Ly$\alpha$ and H$\alpha$ transit light curves. Its central result is that escape matters for low-gravity giants: the $0.3\,\mathrm{M_{Jup}}$ planet can lose more than $20\%$ of its initial mass over its life, whereas the $1\,\mathrm{M_{Jup}}$ planet loses at most $1\%$. That asymmetry is presented as direct support for the idea that the short-period Neptunian desert is carved by mass loss. The paper also predicts that H$\alpha$ transits are strong only in young systems, reaching $3\text{--}4\%$ excess depth, and nearly vanish after about $1.2$ Gyr because the escaping neutral hydrogen sits almost entirely in the ground state. A sympathetic reader would take this as a roadmap for where H$\alpha$ surveys should look.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a one-dimensional, spherically symmetric hydrodynamic escape model for a hydrogen atmosphere, with photoionization heating from stellar EUV, Ly$\alpha$ radiative cooling, ionisation balance, and conservation of mass, momentum (including a tidal term), and energy; the transonic outflow is solved by a shooting method. Two evolutionary inputs drive the time dependence: stellar EUV flux following slow, intermediate, and fast rotator tracks, and radius-contraction curves for the $1$ and $0.3$ Jupiter-mass planets. For transits, the outflow density, temperature, and velocity are mapped onto a 3D grid and ray-traced with Voigt line profiles for Ly$\alpha$ and H$\alpha$, with the $\mathrm{n}=2$ hydrogen fraction computed from statistical equilibrium; this is what produces the grounded prediction that H$\alpha$ absorption nearly disappears after about $1.2$ Gyr.

What would settle it

Observe a 0.3-Jupiter-mass planet near 0.045 au around a solar-type star older than about 1.2 Gyr and measure its H-alpha transit: the model predicts essentially zero excess absorption, so a secure detection of more than 1% excess would contradict the ground-state domination prediction. Conversely, finding a substantial population of such planets at old ages would weaken the claim that escape removes most of their mass.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the mass-loss history of a close-in giant is set by two competing evolutions: stellar EUV flux declines with age (faster for slow rotators), while the planet contracts and its gravity strengthens. Combining these inputs in a one-dimensional hydrodynamic wind model yields mass-loss rates of roughly $10^9$--$10^{12}$ g/s for the Jupiter-mass planet and $10^{10}$--$10^{13}$ g/s for the $0.3$ Jupiter-mass planet, declining steeply with age. Integrating these rates gives the headline numbers: at most $1\%$ of the initial mass lost for the $1\,\mathrm{M_{Jup}}$ case and more than $20\%$ for the $0.3\,\mathrm{M_{Jup}}$ case, with the exact fraction depending on whether the host star was born a slow or fast rotator. The same outflows, rendered with ray tracing, produce saturated Ly$\alpha$ at line center for young planets and H$\alpha$ excesses of at most $3\text{--}4\%$ that fade to nothing after about $1.2$ Gyr, because the $\mathrm{n}=2$ hydrogen population needed for H$\alpha$ becomes negligible while the ground-state population that drives Ly$\alpha$ remains large.

Load-bearing premise

The radius and mass evolution are taken from contraction tracks that do not include the mass being lost, so for the 0.3-Jupiter-mass planet the gravity used at late ages is too strong; including the lost mass would raise escape and could change the quoted 20% and 1.2 Gyr H-alpha boundary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Over 5 Gyr, a Jupiter-mass planet at 0.045 au keeps at least 99% of its mass, so hot-Jupiter mass loss is negligible for the planet's overall evolution.
  • A 0.3-Jupiter-mass planet at the same orbit can lose more than a fifth of its mass, making hydrodynamic escape a viable sculptor of the Neptunian desert.
  • H-alpha transits are a young-planet phenomenon: excess depths of 3-4% occur only at the youngest ages, and excess absorption drops below 1% after roughly 200 Myr (or 600 Myr around fast rotators).
  • After about 1.2 Gyr, H-alpha absorption vanishes even where Ly-alpha remains strong or saturated, so joint H-alpha and Ly-alpha observations can distinguish young escaping atmospheres from old quiescent ones.
  • The power-law fits for mass-loss rate and terminal velocity let observers estimate escape rates from age and host-star rotation alone, without recomputing hydrodynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If mass loss is as strong as claimed for the 0.3-Jupiter-mass case, then including the lost mass in the radius evolution would weaken gravity at late ages and likely push the total lost fraction above 20%; the quoted numbers should be read as lower bounds.
  • The same machinery, run for lower-mass planets or shorter orbits, could quantify whether some close-in rocky planets are fully stripped cores of former Neptunes, an endpoint the paper explicitly gestures toward.
  • Because stellar activity mimics H-alpha variability, the model's prediction of stronger H-alpha at young ages could be tested by targeting young, inactive stars in clusters precisely where activity is lowest.
  • The predicted disappearance of H-alpha after about 1.2 Gyr offers a direct observational test of EUV evolution models: a detected H-alpha excess around an old, low-gravity giant would require either higher EUV than assumed or additional excitation mechanisms.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents one-dimensional hydrodynamic escape simulations for 0.3- and 1-Mjup planets at 0.045 au around a solar-mass star, evolved from 10 Myr to 5 Gyr under three stellar EUV evolution tracks (slow, intermediate, fast rotators). The authors compute mass-loss rates, integrate them to obtain total mass loss, and then use a three-dimensional ray-tracing model with Voigt profiles to predict Ly-alpha and H-alpha transit depths and equivalent widths. The main claims are that the 0.3-Mjup planet can lose up to 20% of its initial mass, supporting a mass-loss origin of the Neptunian desert, and that H-alpha absorption nearly disappears after about 1.2 Gyr because the outflowing hydrogen is predominantly in the ground state.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, the paper provides an interesting evolutionary framework: it shows that escape can be dynamically important for low-gravity giants, gives specific predictions for H-alpha and Ly-alpha transit evolution, and offers analytical fits to mass-loss rates as an alternative to energy-limited formulas. The model is transparent in its limitations (4-pi isotropic upper limit, fixed mass), and the comparison with the energy-limited approximation is instructive. The predictions are falsifiable with observations of young systems, and the inclusion of three stellar rotation tracks is a strength. However, because the headline mass-loss fraction and the H-alpha disappearance age rest on the unquantified fixed-mass assumption, the robustness of these conclusions is not yet established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4 and 4.1] The integrated total mass loss of more than 20% for the 0.3-Mjup planet is obtained by integrating mass-loss rates that are computed using a fixed planetary mass and radius tracks from Fortney & Nettelmann (2010) that do not include mass loss, as stated in Sections 2 and 4. For a planet that loses more than 20% of its mass, the gravitational potential at late ages is overestimated, and the paper's assertion that this effect is 'minor' compared to radius variation (Section 4) is not demonstrated. Since the mass-loss rate in this model scales with the effective gravitational potential, the self-consistent mass-loss fraction could be substantially larger. The authors should quantify this by a sensitivity test, for example by repeating the evolution with a mass that decreases according to the computed Mdot, or by providing an analytic estimate of the fractional change in Mdot when Mpl is reduced by 20%.
  2. [Section 5.2, Figure 8] The prediction that H-alpha absorption nearly disappears after ~1.2 Gyr for the 0.3-Mjup planet is derived from atmospheric structures computed with the same fixed-mass approximation. Because the planet has already lost a significant fraction of its mass by that age in the authors' own integration, the late-age wind density, temperature, and n=2 population may be misrepresented. The 1.2-Gyr boundary should therefore be presented as a lower limit or as model-dependent until the mass-feedback effect is assessed; as written, this prediction is not robust to the stated limitation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (13)] The Voigt profile expression includes a variable xi that is never defined; please define it (or remove it) for completeness.
  2. [Section 2] The normalization of the Johnstone et al. (2015c) EUV curves by dividing by 6.7 is described in a footnote; it would be clearer to state in the main text that the entire evolutionary track is scaled by a constant factor to match the Ribas et al. (2005) solar-age value.
  3. [Section 5.2] The comparison to HD189733b and KELT-9b would benefit from a brief statement of the model ages or EUV fluxes that correspond to the quoted observed transit depths, since the paper's own predictions are age-dependent.
  4. [Abstract and Figure 8] The abstract says H-alpha absorption 'nearly disappears' after ~1.2 Gyr; Figure 8 shows that for the 0.3-Mjup planet the excess flux goes to zero, while for the 1-Mjup planet it remains at fractions of a percent. The wording should distinguish these cases.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mass-loss and transit predictions follow from external EUV/radius tracks and published physical models; self-citations are methodological only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained relative to its inputs. Mass-loss rates are obtained by solving the hydrodynamic equations (Eqs. 1-4) with EUV flux tracks from Johnstone et al. (2015c) and radius tracks from Fortney & Nettelmann (2010); neither input is fitted to the predicted Ly-alpha or H-alpha transits, nor to the total mass-loss fractions. The 1% and 20% mass-loss claims in Section 4.1 are time integrals of the computed Mdot curves, not quantities imposed by construction. The disappearance of H-alpha absorption after about 1.2 Gyr follows from the computed neutral-hydrogen n=2 population via CHIANTI statistical-equilibrium calculations using the model's own temperature and electron-density profiles, so it is a derived output. Citations to Vidotto & Jatenco-Pereira (2006) and Vidotto et al. (2018) are methodological, covering the numerical shooting method and the ray-tracing code; they do not supply the conclusions, because the transit predictions are generated by those codes rather than assumed by them. Appendix A power-law fits are post-hoc summaries of already-computed outputs and are not used as inputs to the evolution calculation. The stated neglect of mass loss in the adopted radius evolution (Sections 2 and 4) is a physical limitation affecting the robustness of the 20% figure and the age boundary, but it is not circularity: the prediction is not equivalent to an input by definition, and the sign and magnitude of the neglected feedback are quantified uncertainties rather than logical identities.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard hydrodynamic escape physics plus external evolutionary tracks. The most important non-standard elements are the no-core, no-mass-loss radius track and the coronal-model n=2 populations, both of which shape the headline numbers. No entities are invented; the free parameters are boundary conditions and a normalization from prior solar-flux measurements.

free parameters (3)
  • Base temperature T0 = 1000 K
    Boundary condition at the planet's base (1 Rpl), taken from Murray-Clay et al. (2009). The authors state it has negligible effect on escape after sensitivity tests, but it is a chosen input, not derived.
  • Base mass density rho0 = 4e-13 g cm^-3
    Boundary condition at 1 Rpl, also from Murray-Clay et al. (2009). Sensitivity tested, but it remains a hand-chosen input to the hydrodynamic integration.
  • EUV flux normalization factor = 1/6.7
    Footnote 1: the Johnstone et al. (2015c) EUV curves are divided by 6.7 to force a flux of 1 erg/s/cm2 at 1 au at solar age, matching Ribas et al. (2005). This global scaling enters every mass-loss rate.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption The escaping atmosphere is collisional (Kn << 1), steady, spherically symmetric, and described by the fluid equations in a co-rotating frame.
    Section 3.1. Justifies the hydrodynamic model and the 1D radial treatment; if Kn were not small the fluid approximation would fail.
  • domain assumption EUV heating is monochromatic at 20 eV with efficiency epsilon = 0.32, and the photoionization cross-section is from Spitzer (1978).
    Section 3.1. Standard Murray-Clay prescription; a realistic stellar spectrum would produce a different heating distribution.
  • domain assumption Cooling is dominated by Ly-alpha collisional excitation with the given volumetric cooling rate, and recombination is case B.
    Section 3.1. These prescriptions set the thermal structure of the wind.
  • ad hoc to paper The stellar EUV evolution follows Johnstone et al. (2015c) slow, intermediate, and fast rotator tracks, normalized by dividing by 6.7 to match Ribas et al. (2005).
    Section 2 and footnote 1. The age dependence of the entire study comes from these external tracks, and the normalization is a specific calibration choice made for this paper.
  • domain assumption Planetary radius evolution follows Fortney & Nettelmann (2010) no-core models that do not include the effect of mass loss.
    Section 2. Load-bearing for the 20% mass-loss claim; a self-consistent radius would differ, especially for the lower-mass planet.
  • domain assumption The substellar-point hydrodynamic solution is applied over 4pi steradians, making the escape rate an upper limit.
    Section 3.1. Real dayside and nightside geometry and stellar wind confinement would reduce or redistribute the flow.
  • domain assumption The n=2 hydrogen population is computed in the CHIANTI coronal-model approximation, with only direct excitation from n=1 and no radiative pumping.
    Section 5. Controls the H-alpha transit amplitudes and the predicted disappearance after ~1.2 Gyr; stellar Ly-alpha pumping could populate n=2 differently.
  • domain assumption Transit observables assume a uniform stellar disc, impact parameter b=0, and Voigt line profiles with NIST oscillator strengths and transition rates.
    Section 3.3. These choices set the absolute transit depths and durations.
  • standard math The tidal term in the momentum equation (3GM*r/a^3) represents effective gravity in the co-rotating frame.
    Section 3.1, following Garcia Munoz (2007). Standard orbital mechanics approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolution of atmospheric escape in close-in giant planets and their associated Ly$\alpha$ and H$\alpha$ transit predictions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E6KHERSZ

@misc{pith2026190803510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolution of atmospheric escape in close-in giant planets and their associated Ly$\alpha$ and H$\alpha$ transit predictions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E6KHERSZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03510}
}
read the original abstract

Strong atmospheric escape has been detected in several close-in exoplanets. As these planets consist mostly of hydrogen, observations in hydrogen lines, such as Ly-alpha and H-alpha, are powerful diagnostics of escape. Here, we simulate the evolution of atmospheric escape of close-in giant planets and calculate their associated Ly-alpha and H-alpha transits. We use a one-dimensional hydrodynamic escape model to compute physical properties of the atmosphere and a ray-tracing technique to simulate spectroscopic transits. We consider giant (0.3 and 1M_jup) planets orbiting a solar-like star at 0.045au, evolving from 10 to 5000 Myr. We find that younger giants show higher rates of escape, owing to a favourable combination of higher irradiation fluxes and weaker gravities. Less massive planets show higher escape rates (1e10 -- 1e13 g/s) than those more massive (1e9 -- 1e12 g/s) over their evolution. We estimate that the 1-M_jup planet would lose at most 1% of its initial mass due to escape, while the 0.3-M_jup planet, could lose up to 20%. This supports the idea that the Neptunian desert has been formed due to significant mass loss in low-gravity planets. At younger ages, we find that the mid-transit Ly-alpha line is saturated at line centre, while H-alpha exhibits transit depths of at most 3 -- 4% in excess of their geometric transit. While at older ages, Ly-alpha absorption is still significant (and possibly saturated for the lower mass planet), the H-alpha absorption nearly disappears. This is because the extended atmosphere of neutral hydrogen becomes predominantly in the ground state after ~1.2 Gyr.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03510 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: EUV flux received at an orbital distance of 0.045 au from a solar-like star with respect to planetary age. Line colour indicates stellar rotation: slow (red), intermediate (green), fast (blue). From Johnstone et al. (2015c). Bottom: Planetary radius with respect to age for both a 1-Mjup (magenta) and a 0.3-Mjup (orange) close-in giant orbiting a solar-like star at 0.045 au. From Fortney & Nettelmann (2010). The… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radial profiles of various atmospheric properties for two simulated close-in planets with masses 1 Mjup (magenta, solid line) and 0.3Mjup (orange, dashed line) and radius 1.1 Rjup. The planets orbit a solar-like star at 0.045 au, and receive an incident flux FEUV = 480 erg cm−2 s −1 , consistent with a 4.5 Gyr-old star. Left panels, from top to bottom: wind velocity u, temperature T, total mass density ρ. Right pane… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of atmospheric properties for a 1-Mjup (left) and 0.3-Mjup (right) planets orbiting a 1-M star at 0.045 au, of slow (red), intermediate (green) or fast (blue) rotation. The panels are: mass-loss rate M˙ (upper), terminal velocity uterm (centre) and radial distance to the sonic point Rsonic (lower). Dashed lines show M˙ predicted by the energy-limited approximation (Equation 10). We present analytical fits … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total planetary mass lost after the age of 10 Myrs for a 1- (top) and 0.3- (bottom) Mjup planets orbiting a slow (red), inter￾mediate (green), and fast (blue) rotating host. Solid and dashed lines are mass lost calculated using the hydrodynamic model and energy-limited…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Lyα transit simulations for the 1-Mjup planet. Results are separated into three blocks related to the host star stellar rotation: slow (a-c), intermediate (d-f) and fast (g-i) rotators. Panels a, d, and g show the lightcurves of the geometric transit. Panels b, e and h…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Transit depths, in excess of the geometric transit, in the Hα line at line centre and at mid-transit versus the predicted escape rate. Symbols mark different evolutionary stage, with the younger systems at the top right of the curves and evolving as going towards the b…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Self-Consistent 3D Hydrodynamic Model for Helium Transit Signatures in Evaporating Hot Jupiters

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 3D hydrodynamic model with self-consistent hydrogen-helium chemistry shows stellar winds compress escaping hot-Jupiter atmospheres and suppress the 1083 nm helium triplet signal, while a young star's strong XUV flux...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Allart R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834917 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...623A..58A 623, A58

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834917 2019

  2. [2]

    He I $\lambda$ 10830 \r{A} in the transmission spectrum of HD 209458 b

    Alonso-Floriano F. J., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190713425A p. arXiv:1907.13425

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    R., Haswell C

    Barnes J. R., Haswell C. A., Staab D., Anglada-Escud \'e G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.1012B 462, 1012

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1713 2016

  4. [4]

    Ben-Jaffel L., 2008, @doi [apj] 10.1086/592101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688.1352B 688, 1352

    work page doi:10.1086/592101 2008

  5. [5]

    A., Vidotto A

    Bourrier V., Lecavelier des Etangs A., Ehrenreich D., Tanaka Y. A., Vidotto A. A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628362 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628362 2016

  6. [6]

    Carolan S., Vidotto A., Loesch C., Coogan P., 2019, , in press

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    C., Kasting J

    Catling D. C., Kasting J. F., 2017, Atmospheric Evolution on Inhabited and Lifeless Worlds

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    W., Redfield S., Jensen A

    Cauley P. W., Redfield S., Jensen A. G., Barman T., Endl M., Cochran W. D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/13 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...13C 810, 13

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/13 2015

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    W., Redfield S., Jensen A

    Cauley P. W., Redfield S., Jensen A. G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6a15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153..217C 153, 217

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    W., Shkolnik E

    Cauley P. W., Shkolnik E. L., Ilyin I., Strassmeier K. G., Redfield S., Jensen A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157...69C 157, 69

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Noyes R

    Charbonneau D., Brown T. M., Noyes R. W., Gilliland R. L., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338770 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...568..377C 568, 377

    2002 doi

  4. [12]

    Cloutier R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa54e , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155...93C 155, 93

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.2600D 483, 2600

    Daley-Yates S., Stevens I. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.2600D 483, 2600

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Fossati L., McCann J., Murray-Clay R., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190600075D p

    Debrecht A., Carroll-Nellenback J., Frank A., Blackman E. G., Fossati L., McCann J., Murray-Clay R., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190600075D p. arXiv:1906.00075

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    E., 2018, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.1007/s41116-018-0015-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018LRSP...15....5D 15, 5

    Del Zanna G., Mason H. E., 2018, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.1007/s41116-018-0015-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018LRSP...15....5D 15, 5

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    P., Del Zanna G., Young P

    Dere K. P., Del Zanna G., Young P. R., Landi E., Sutherland R. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab05cf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..241...22D 241, 22

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Ehrenreich D., D \'e sert J.-M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016356 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    Ehrenreich D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature14501 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Natur.522..459E 522, 459

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    V., Kulikov Y

    Erkaev N. V., Kulikov Y. N., Lammer H., Selsis F., Langmayr D., Jaritz G. F., Biernat H. K., 2007, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066929 , 472, 329

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Krapp L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.5788E 487, 5788

    Esquivel A., Schneiter M., Villarreal D'Angelo C., Sgr \'o M. A., Krapp L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.5788E 487, 5788

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    T., et al., 2017, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series

    Fleming B. T., et al., 2017, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. p. 103971A, @doi 10.1117/12.2276138

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Nettelmann N., 2010, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-009-9582-x , 152, 423

    Fortney J. J., Nettelmann N., 2010, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-009-9582-x , 152, 423

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    Fossati L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/872 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720..872F 720, 872

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    Gallet F., Bouvier J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    Garc \' a Mu \ n oz A., 2007, @doi [planss] 10.1016/j.pss.2007.03.007 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007P

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    G., Wood K., 2006, @doi [mnras] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09995.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.367..917J 367, 917

    Jardine M., Collier Cameron A., Donati J.-F., Gregory S. G., Wood K., 2006, @doi [mnras] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09995.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.367..917J 367, 917

    2006

  19. [27]

    G., Redfield S., Endl M., Cochran W

    Jensen A. G., Redfield S., Endl M., Cochran W. D., Koesterke L., Barman T., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/86 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...751...86J 751, 86

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    G., Cauley P

    Jensen A. G., Cauley P. W., Redfield S., Cochran W. D., Endl M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aadca7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018AJ....156..154J 156, 154

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Guedel M., Brott I., L \"u ftinger T., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425301 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    Johnstone C. P., Guedel M., Brott I., L \"u ftinger T., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425301 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    doi

  22. [31]

    P., et al., 2015c, @doi [Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L12 , 815, 1

    Johnstone C. P., et al., 2015c, @doi [Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L12 , 815, 1

    doi

  23. [32]

    F., Whitmire D

    Kasting J. F., Whitmire D. P., Reynolds R. T., 1993, @doi [Icarus] 10.1006/icar.1993.1010 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Icar..101..108K 101, 108

    1993

  24. [33]

    L., Shaikhislamov I

    Khodachenko M. L., Shaikhislamov I. F., Lammer H., Prokopov P. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/50 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813...50K 813, 50

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    G., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322933 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    Kislyakova K. G., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322933 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  26. [35]

    Kubyshkina D., et al., 2018, @doi [aap] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833737 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    R., France K., Linsky J., Loyd R

    Kulow J. R., France K., Linsky J., Loyd R. O. P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/132 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786..132K 786, 132

    2014 doi

  28. [37]

    Lammer H., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-009-0019-z , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  29. [38]

    Lavie B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731340 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    2017 doi

  30. [39]

    Lecavelier des Etangs A., et al., 2012, @doi [aap] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219363 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  31. [40]

    Mazeh T., Holczer T., Faigler S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201528065 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  32. [41]

    A., Kratter K., Krumholz M

    McCann J., Murray-Clay R. A., Kratter K., Krumholz M. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05b8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873...89M 873, 89

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    A., Chiang E

    Murray-Clay R. A., Chiang E. I., Murray N., 2009, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/23 , 693, 23

    2009 doi

  34. [43]

    Nortmann L., et al., 2018, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aat5348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Sci...362.1388N 362, 1388

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  36. [45]

    E., Wu Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775..105O 775, 105

    Owen J. E., Wu Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775..105O 775, 105

    2013 doi

  37. [46]

    N., 1958, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146579 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...128..664P 128, 664

    Parker E. N., 1958, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146579 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...128..664P 128, 664

    1958 doi

  38. [47]

    Quirrenbach A., et al., 2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V. p. 91471F, @doi 10.1117/12.2056453

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    F., Guedel M., Audard M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427977 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622..680R 622, 680

    Ribas I., Guinan E. F., Guedel M., Audard M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427977 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622..680R 622, 680

    2005 doi

  40. [49]

    C., Czesla S., Schmitt J

    Salz M., Schneider P. C., Czesla S., Schmitt J. H. M. M., 2016a, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527042 , 2, 1

    doi

  41. [50]

    C., Schmitt J

    Salz M., Czesla S., Schneider P. C., Schmitt J. H. M. M., 2016b, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526109 , 586, A75

    doi

  42. [51]

    Skumanich A., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151310 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...171..565S 171, 565

    1972 doi

  43. [52]

    Spitzer L., 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium , @doi 10.1002/9783527617722

    1978 doi

  44. [53]

    J., Hummer D

    Storey P. J., Hummer D. G., 1995, @doi [mnras] 10.1093/mnras/272.1.41 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.272...41S 272, 41

    1995 doi

  45. [54]

    P., Guedel M., Lammer H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526146 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    Tu L., Johnstone C. P., Guedel M., Lammer H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526146 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    E., Ferlet R., H \'e brard G., Mayor M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature01448 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.422..143V 422, 143

    Vidal-Madjar A., Lecavelier des Etangs A., D \'e sert J.-M., Ballester G. E., Ferlet R., H \'e brard G., Mayor M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature01448 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.422..143V 422, 143

    2003 doi

  47. [56]

    A., Jatenco-Pereira V., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499329 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...639..416V 639, 416

    Vidotto A. A., Jatenco-Pereira V., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499329 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...639..416V 639, 416

    2006 doi

  48. [57]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu728 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2361V 441, 2361

    Vidotto A. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu728 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2361V 441, 2361

    2014 doi

  49. [58]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2130 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.5296V 481, 5296

    Vidotto A. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2130 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.5296V 481, 5296

    2018 doi

  50. [59]

    A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018MNRAS.479.3115V 479, 3115

    Villarreal D'Angelo C., Esquivel A., Schneiter M., Sgr \'o M. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018MNRAS.479.3115V 479, 3115

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    J., Donahue T

    Watson A. J., Donahue T. M., Walker J. C. G., 1981, @doi [icarus] 10.1016/0019-1035(81)90101-9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981Icar...48..150W 48, 150

    1981 doi

  52. [61]

    E., M \"u ller H.-R., Zank G

    Wood B. E., M \"u ller H.-R., Zank G. P., Linsky J. L., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340797 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574..412W 574, 412

    2002 doi

  53. [62]

    Yan F., Henning T., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0503-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..714Y 2, 714

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.