Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Streams and Bubbles: Tidal Shaping of Planetary Outflows

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 A single dimensionless number, the Hill-sphere Rossby number, predicts whether a planet's escaping atmosphere forms a spherical bubble or a thin tidal stream.

desk verdict A genuinely useful Rossby-number framework for tidal shaping of exoplanet outflows, but the 'alone' claim overreaches the fixed-parameter simulation grid. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12895 v2 pith:3VEGXU55 submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Morgan MacLeod , Antonija Oklopčić , Fabienne Nail , Dion Linssen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords exoplanetatmosphericescapetidalstreamsRossbynumbertransitspectroscopyhydrodynamicsimulationsHillsphereoutflowsphase-resolvedkinematics
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

Most escaping exoplanet atmospheres are not symmetric winds: depending on the system, the gas can leave as a roughly spherical bubble or be stretched into a thin stream that trails along the orbit. This paper argues that the shape is controlled by a single dimensionless number, the Hill-sphere Rossby number $\mathrm{Ro}_H = c_s/(\Omega r_H)$, which compares the outflow speed to the orbital shear across the planet's Hill sphere. Using three-dimensional gas-dynamic simulations, the authors show that high-$\mathrm{Ro}_H$ outflows form bubbles while low-$\mathrm{Ro}_H$ outflows form streams, and that this same number predicts the velocity gradient seen across transit. If the claim holds, transit spectra can be used to measure outflow temperatures directly, and the known exoplanet population should contain a mix of bubble-like and stream-like mass loss that observers must account for when interpreting absorption signals.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Hill-sphere Rossby number, $\mathrm{Ro}_H = c_s/(\Omega r_H) = \sqrt{3/\lambda_H}$, where $c_s$ is the outflow sound speed, $\Omega$ is the planet's orbital angular velocity, $r_H=(M_p/3M_\ast)^{1/3}a$ is the Hill radius, and $\lambda_H=GM_p/(c_s^2 r_H)$ is the Hill-sphere escape parameter. The number quantifies how much orbital shear and Coriolis acceleration divert the wind before it crosses the Hill sphere: when $\mathrm{Ro}_H\gg 1$ the wind wins and forms a bubble, when $\mathrm{Ro}_H\ll 1$ the tide wins and channels gas into streams. The companion diagnostic is the dimensionless transit velocity gradient $\xi_\mathrm{los}$, the mass-weighted line-of-sight velocity difference between egress and ingress normalized to the planet's own velocity gradient; the simulations show it tracks $\ln \mathrm{Ro}_H$, saturating at $\xi_\mathrm{los}\to1$ for bubbles and falling toward zero or negative values for streams.

What would settle it

A decisive test would target a transiting evaporating planet whose predicted Rossby number is high ($\mathrm{Ro}_H\gtrsim 2$) and measure the phase-resolved velocity gradient of its metastable helium or Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption with radiative-transfer modeling. The bubble prediction is $\xi_\mathrm{los}\approx 1$, with outflow kinematics tracking the planet; observing instead a shallow or inverted gradient, or excess absorption that demands a geometrically thin stream, would falsify the single-parameter mapping proposed here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the morphology and observable kinematics of a planetary outflow are determined, to good approximation, by the Hill-sphere Rossby number $\mathrm{Ro}_H$. Defined as $c_s / (\Omega r_H)$ with $c_s$ the outflow sound speed, $\Omega$ the planet's orbital angular velocity, and $r_H$ the Hill radius, it is also $\sqrt{3/\lambda_H}$ in terms of the Hill-sphere escape parameter. In 27 hydrodynamic simulations spanning factors of four in orbital distance, planetary radius, and escape parameter, the authors find that flows with $\mathrm{Ro}_H\gtrsim$ a few are quasi-spherical and bounded by bow shocks, while flows with $\mathrm{Ro}_H\lesssim 1$ are channeled through the inner and outer Lagrange points into thin, dense streams. The dimensionless transit velocity gradient $\xi_\mathrm{los}$ collapses onto a single curve when plotted against $\ln \mathrm{Ro}_H$, saturating at $\xi_\mathrm{los}\to1$ in the bubble limit and approaching zero or negative values in the stream limit. Applied to the known exoplanet population, the model predicts a continuum of shapes, with detected evaporating systems falling in stream-like parts of the diagram.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, adopted in Section 5.3, is that photo-evaporation models give each planet's outflow sound speed correctly; if those model temperatures run hot by the factor of about two that the observed stream systems already suggest, the predicted Rossby numbers and the claimed population split shift accordingly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Phase-resolved transit spectra become a thermometer for escaping atmospheres: the sign and slope of $\xi_\mathrm{los}$ across transit constrain the outflow sound speed without assuming line widths are purely thermal.
  • Stream-like outflows create significant excess absorption outside optical transit, so simple in-transit versus out-of-transit subtraction biases measured line depths and mass-loss rates; observing baselines should be chosen from the predicted Rossby number.
  • The known exoplanet population should show a continuum of outflow geometries rather than one spherical-wind template, with bubble-like and stream-like systems both common.
  • In the stream limit the outflow is kinematically cold in energy–angular momentum phase space despite being spatially extended, so its material moves nearly on the planet's own orbit and can be treated as ballistic streams.
  • Detected stream-like systems fall where the diagram predicts streams, and a system with mostly in-transit absorption falls where the diagram predicts a confined outflow, giving initial support to the population forecast.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Rossby-number criterion should organize mass loss from any body embedded in a stronger tide, such as circumplanetary disks or donor stars in close binaries, provided the sound-speed estimate is replaced by the relevant outflow speed.
  • If real outflow temperatures are systematically cooler than the photo-evaporation models assume, the population diagram shifts many systems into the stream regime, and the observed sample may be biased toward bubbles simply because they are easier to detect near the planet.
  • A survey of a dozen evaporating planets spanning the predicted $\mathrm{Ro}_H$ range would test the claimed collapse more strongly than the two stream systems available so far; the paper's own optically-thin caveat means synthetic spectra from the simulated densities are the right next check.
  • The opposite signs of $\xi_\mathrm{los}$ in the bubble and stream limits make a single well-measured transit of an evaporating planet a powerful morphology discriminator, suggesting a targeted observing program rather than a statistical one.
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 paper investigates the morphology of hydrodynamic outflows from close-in exoplanets. Using a suite of 27 Athena++ simulations in which semi-major axis, planetary radius, and planetary escape parameter are varied, the authors identify two morphologies: nearly isotropic 'bubbles' and thin tidal 'streams.' They define a Hill-sphere Rossby number, Ro_H = c_s/(Omega r_H) (Eq. 6), and show that simulation diagnostics collapse approximately onto a relation between Ro_H and the dimensionless transit line-of-sight velocity gradient xi_los (Fig. 5). They then use photoevaporation-model sound speeds to predict Ro_H for the known exoplanet population (Fig. 6) and discuss observing strategies.

Significance. The clean dimensional analysis in Section 2 and the release of the simulation source code are strengths. The proposed Rossby-number framework is simple and testable: if it holds, measuring transit velocity gradients would constrain outflow sound speeds and hence outflow temperatures, independent of spectral-line thermal broadening. The paper also makes a falsifiable population-level prediction. The main caveats are that the simulation grid fixes stellar wind and mass-loss parameters and that the population prediction inherits model-dependent temperatures; both need to be addressed before the headline claim is as broad as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Table 1, §5.4, Fig. 5] Section 3.2 and Table 1 restrict the simulation grid to variations of a, R_p, and lambda_p, fixing Mdot_p = Mdot_* = 10^11 g/s and lambda_* = 15. Section 5.4, however, states that stellar winds redirect initially stream- or bubble-like flows into cometary tails whose dynamics depend on the ratio of stellar to planetary mass-loss rates. Since Ro_H (Eq. 6) does not contain Mdot_p, Mdot_*, or lambda_*, the Figure 5 collapse and the abstract's claim that 'Rossby number alone is sufficient' are not supported outside this one-dimensional slice of parameter space. I recommend either adding simulations with varied Mdot_p, Mdot_*, and lambda_* to test whether the collapse persists, or explicitly restricting the claim to the weak-stellar-wind regime and revising the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  2. [§5.3, Eq. (6), Fig. 6] The predicted population distribution of outflow morphologies is based on sound speeds from the sunset and sunbather photoevaporation models (Linssen et al. 2024a,b), which assume a stellar spectral energy distribution, solar metallicity, and a one-dimensional radiative-transfer treatment. The authors acknowledge in Section 5.3 that HAT-P-32b and HAT-P-67b require outflows cooler than these predictions by a factor of roughly two (Nail et al. 2024a). Because Ro_H is proportional to c_s, such a temperature offset propagates directly into the predicted Ro_H and hence the assigned morphology. Please add a sensitivity test (e.g., halving and doubling the adopted sound speeds) and state in the text that Figure 6 is a model-dependent prediction rather than a direct inference from observations.
  3. [Abstract, §4.4, Eqs. (8)-(11)] The claim that Ro_H predicts 'kinematic gradients across transit' is based on the mass-weighted, optically-thin line-of-sight velocity xi_los. Section 4.4 correctly notes that this quantity is not directly observable because spectral line formation depends on opacity and the line-forming region; the abstract and conclusions should carry this caveat or soften 'kinematic gradients' to 'kinematic gradients in the optically thin limit.' As written, the headline overstates the direct observability of the modeled diagnostic.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] Introduction: 'eg.' should be 'e.g.' (e.g., 'metal, hydrogen (eg. Lyman α) ...').
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] Figure 2 caption: 'the the only factor' contains a duplicated article; remove the second 'the.'
  3. [§5.3] Section 5.3: 'absorbtion' should be 'absorption' in 'He 1083 nm absorbtion' (the same typo appears elsewhere in the text).
  4. [§5.1] Section 5.1: 'it may be able to use measured constraints' is ungrammatical; 'it may be possible to use' is intended.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] Figure 4 caption: 'displaces' should be 'displays' in 'Figure 4 displaces density slices.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Hill-sphere Rossby number is an independent control parameter and the ξ_los relation is an empirical collapse, not a reconstruction of its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Ro_H is defined in Equation (6) from the independent physical inputs cs, Omega, and rH, and the simulated morphology and ξ_los are measured outputs: the 27 models vary a, Rp, and lambda_p (Section 3.2, Table 1), and ξ_los is computed from the simulated line-of-sight velocity field via Equations (8)-(11). Showing that these outputs arrange along a curve when plotted against Ro_H (Figure 5) is a scaling collapse, not a fit of a parameter that was then used to define the outcomes. The bubble/stream terminology is motivated in Section 2.3 by the same dimensionless ratio, but the simulations are then used as an independent test, and the ξ_los ≈ ln Ro_H relation is presented as an approximate empirical result. The main self-citations (MacLeod & Oklopčić 2022; Nail et al. 2024a,b; Linssen et al. 2024a,b) supply initial conditions, methods, and population-level temperature estimates rather than the central tidal-shaping argument; the paper explicitly identifies the sunbather temperature assumption (Section 5.3) and the stellar-wind caveat (Section 5.4) as limitations. These are scope and correctness concerns about universality, not cases where a prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or a renamed fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard orbital mechanics and hydrodynamics, plus a chain of model inputs. The main ledger entries are the simulation inputs that define Ro_H and the external temperature model used for the population prediction. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Outflow sound speed c_s (or escape parameter lambda_p) in simulations = 7.6 to 30.6 km/s across the grid
    Chosen model inputs, not fitted to data; they define Ro_H, and the grid spans the parameter space.
  • Predicted outflow temperature for known exoplanets from sunset and sunbather models = Sound speeds roughly 2.5 to 15 km/s (Section 5.3)
    Pulled from a separate photo-evaporation modeling chain (Linssen et al. 2024a,b), which requires assumptions about stellar SED and metallicity; the population prediction inherits these model-dependent temperatures.
  • Slope of the xi_los versus ln(Ro_H) relation = Order 1, drawn by eye in Figure 5
    The paper states models approximately follow xi_los ~ ln(Ro_H) without a formal fit or residuals; if used predictively, this is an empirical calibration.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Isothermal outflow with constant sound speed in the analytic wind scalings, so that sonic radius r_s = lambda_p R_p / 2
    Used in Section 2.1 to derive lambda_p and the sonic radius; the simulations themselves are not necessarily isothermal.
  • domain assumption Stellar mass dominates, M_* >> M_p, and the planet is on a circular Keplerian orbit
    Used in Section 2.2 for r_H, Omega, and v_shear ~ v_H / sqrt(3).
  • ad hoc to paper Outflow velocity approximated by sound speed, v_w ~ c_s, in defining Ro_H and the bubble and stream thresholds
    Equation (6) sets v_w = c_s; Section 2.3 acknowledges v_w(r_B) may differ by a factor of a few in interpreting bubble sizes.
  • domain assumption Mass-weighted line-of-sight velocity (Equation 8) approximates observable spectral shifts
    Section 4.4 states this applies in the fully optically thin limit; real lines depend on optical depth and line-forming region, deferred to future work.
  • ad hoc to paper Fixed planetary and stellar mass-loss rates (10^11 g/s) and stellar wind escape parameter (lambda_* = 15) in all simulations
    Section 3.2 fixes these inputs; the claimed Rossby-number universality is demonstrated within this restricted parameter set, and Section 5.4 notes stellar wind ram pressure can dominate.
  • domain assumption Outflow temperatures for the population are taken from the sunset and sunbather photo-evaporation models
    Section 5.3 uses catalog temperatures to assign Ro_H to real planets; these temperatures are model outputs, not measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Streams and Bubbles: Tidal Shaping of Planetary Outflows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3VEGXU55

@misc{pith2026241112895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Streams and Bubbles: Tidal Shaping of Planetary Outflows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3VEGXU55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12895}
}
read the original abstract

Planets lose mass to atmospheric outflows, and this mass loss is thought to be central in shaping the bimodal population of gaseous giant and rocky terrestrial exoplanets in close orbits. We model the escape of planetary atmospheres in three dimensional gas dynamic simulations in order to study their emergent morphology. Planetary outflows show a range of shapes from fast, isotropic outflows bounded by bow shocks to slower motion confined to thin streams. We show that a crucial factor is the role of the tidal gravity and orbiting reference frame in which planets lose mass. Flows can be characterized by the dimensionless Rossby number evaluated at the scale of the Hill sphere. Flows with a low Rossby number are significantly deviated and shaped by the stellar gravity, while those with a high Rossby number are comparatively unaffected. Rossby number alone is sufficient to predict outflow morphology as well as kinematic gradients across transit. The known exoplanet population should span a range of outflow Rossby numbers and thus shapes. We can use this information to constrain outflow physics and to inform observing strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12895 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. highlights the difference in possible mor￾phologies of planetary outflows. In the “Bubble” case a λp = 2 flow emerges from a 0.5RJ planet at a = 0.05 au, implying a sound speed of cs ≈ 31 km s−1 , while in the “Stream” case, a λp = 8 flow emerges from a 2RJ planet at a = 0.025 au, implying a sound speed of cs ≈ 7.7 km s−1 . In both cases, the orbital velocity of the planet is considerably larger than these sound spe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Density, Mach number, and velocity divergence in slices through the orbital plane surrounding a planet losing mass. In each case, the planetary radius is Rp = RJ and the orbital separation is a = 0.025 au. The sound speed of the gas is the the only factor that changes, characterized by the hydrodynamic escape parameter λp, from a hotter, faster outflow with λp = 2 to a cooler, slower with λp = 8. Arrows mark flow ve… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The model outflows of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The bubble (left) and stream (right) outflows of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dimensionless line-of-sight velocity gradient, ξlos, equation (11), in terms of Hill-sphere Rossby number for all of our simulation set. Points are colored by sound speed and sized by planet radius. Despite widely-varying initial pa￾rameters, we observe that all of the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The gravitational potential of the planet versus the ratio of the Hill and planet radius. Colored points mark exoplanets with known mass and radius, from the sunset catalog of predicted exoplanetary photoevaporative outflow properties, selecting planets with radius of …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Continuous helium absorption from the leading and trailing tails of WASP-107b

    astro-ph.EP 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Continuous JWST observations of WASP-107b reveal metastable helium absorption beginning 1.5 hours before ingress, evidence of an extended ellipsoidal thermosphere, with spot-corrected water abundance log10 H2O = -2.5 ± 0.6.

  2. Atmospheric Escape Rates of Planets in Stellar Tidal Fields from 3-D Hydrodynamic Simulations

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

    1D Parker winds work only for weak tides; a simulation-calibrated Mixture Model of spherical plus L1/L2 nozzle escape predicts 3D mass-loss rates better across Roche-filling and thermal regimes.

  3. 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

36 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Adams, F. C. 2011, ApJ, 730, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/27 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 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L....

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/1/27 2011

  2. [2]

    A., Hazra, G., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & Kubyshkina, D

    Carolan, S., Vidotto, A. A., Hazra, G., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & Kubyshkina, D. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 6001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2947

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2947 2021

  3. [3]

    J., Kashyap, V

    Cohen, O., Drake, J. J., Kashyap, V. L., et al. 2009, ApJL, 704, L85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/L85

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/2/l85 2009

  4. [4]

    L., Drake, J

    Cohen, O., Kashyap, V. L., Drake, J. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/67

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/1/67 2011

  5. [5]

    V., Kulikov, Y

    Erkaev, N. V., Kulikov, Y. N., Lammer, H., et al. 2007, A&A, 472, 329, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066929

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066929 2007

  6. [6]

    2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.14.0, v1.14.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12522488

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.14.0, v1.14.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12522488

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.12522488 2024

  7. [7]

    V., Luna, J., et al

    Gully-Santiago, M., Morley, C. V., Luna, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1ee8

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad1ee8 2024

  8. [8]

    R., Millman, K

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

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

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    Lai, D., Helling, C., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2010, ApJ, 721, 923, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/923

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., & Cassinelli, J. P. 1999, Introduction to Stellar Winds Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Vidal-Madjar, A., McConnell, J. C., & H´ ebrard, G. 2004, A&A, 418, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040106

    1999 doi

  4. [12]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.03228, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.03228 13

    Linssen, D., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & MacLeod, M. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.03228, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.03228 13

    doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    2024b, A&A, 688, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450240

    Linssen, D., Shih, J., MacLeod, M., & Oklopˇ ci´ c, A. 2024b, A&A, 688, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450240

    doi

  6. [14]

    H., & Shu, F

    Lubow, S. H., & Shu, F. H. 1975, ApJ, 198, 383, doi: 10.1086/153614

    1975 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46ce

    MacLeod, M., & Oklopˇ ci´ c, A. 2022, ApJ, 926, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46ce

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2015, A&A, 578, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425593

    Matsakos, T., Uribe, A., & K¨ onigl, A. 2015, A&A, 578, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425593

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Kratter, K., & Krumholz, M

    McCann, J., Murray-Clay, R. A., Kratter, K., & Krumholz, M. R. 2019, ApJ, 873, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05b8

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Chiang, E

    Murray-Clay, R. A., Chiang, E. I., & Murray, N. 2009, ApJ, 693, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/23

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, Reproduction package for the paper: ”The effects of planetary day-night temperature gradients on He 1083 nm transit spectra”, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10025850

    Nail, F. 2023, Reproduction package for the paper: ”The effects of planetary day-night temperature gradients on He 1083 nm transit spectra”, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10025850

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19381, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19381

    Nail, F., MacLeod, M., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19381, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19381

    doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    2024b, A&A, 684, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347709 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hirata, C

    Nail, F., Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & MacLeod, M. 2024b, A&A, 684, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347709 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., & Hirata, C. M. 2018, ApJL, 855, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaada9 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A., Silva, M., Montero-Camacho, P., & Hirata, C. M. 2020, ApJ, 890, 88, doi: 10....

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, A&A, 689, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449411

    Orell-Miquel, J., Murgas, F., Pall´ e, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449411

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    E., & Adams, F

    Owen, J. E., & Adams, F. C. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3761, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1684

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    E., & Jackson, A

    Owen, J. E., & Jackson, A. P. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2931, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21481.x

    2012

  17. [25]

    E., & Lai, D

    Owen, J. E., & Lai, D. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1760

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    E., & Wu, Y

    Owen, J. E., & Wu, Y. 2013, ApJ, 775, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/105 —. 2017, ApJ, 847, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa890a

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    E., Murray-Clay, R

    Owen, J. E., Murray-Clay, R. A., Schreyer, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4357, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3414

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Parker, E. N. 1960, ApJ, 132, 821, doi: 10.1086/146985

    1960 doi

  21. [29]

    E., Spake, J

    Schreyer, E., Owen, J. E., Spake, J. J., Bahroloom, Z., & Di Giampasquale, S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3528

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    M., & Proga, D

    Stone, J. M., & Proga, D. 2009, ApJ, 694, 205, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/205

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Wagg, T., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04405. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04405

    2024

  26. [34]

    A., Wang, L., Dai, F., & Barrag´ an, O

    Zhang, M., Knutson, H. A., Wang, L., Dai, F., & Barrag´ an, O. 2022, AJ, 163, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3fa7

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    V., Gully-Santiago, M., et al

    Zhang, Z., Morley, C. V., Gully-Santiago, M., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf8736, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adf8736

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    G., Bisikalo, D

    Zhilkin, A. G., Bisikalo, D. V., & Kaygorodov, P. V. 2020, Astronomy Reports, 64, 259, doi: 10.1134/S1063772920030063

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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