Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 35 references

Bayesian Analysis for Remote Biosignature Identification on exoEarths (BARBIE) \RNum{3}: Introducing the KEN

T0 review · 3 major / 8 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 The paper claims that a modern-Earth level of methane is undetectable in reflected light at any signal-to-noise ratio up to 20, while an Archean-Earth level is detectable at all tested SNRs and bandpass widths.

desk verdict A useful, careful simulation study mapping CH4/H2O detectability for HWO, but the abstract's 'all SNRs and bandpass widths' overstates what was actually computed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15089 v1 pith:O6TLF3WL submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Natasha Latouf , Michael D. Himes , Avi M. Mandell , Michael Dane Moore , Vincent Kofman , Geronimo L. Villanueva , Chris Stark This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords exoplanetatmospheresmethanedetectabilitygeometricalbedoBayesianretrievalnestedsamplingHabitableWorldsObservatoryreflectedlightbiosignatures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether methane, a key biosignature candidate, could be seen in the reflected light of an Earth-like exoplanet by a future space coronagraph, and what observing strategy would find it. Using new spectral grids called KEN, the authors run Bayesian retrievals over 25 bandpasses between 0.8 and 1.5 microns and six CH4 abundance levels spanning modern Earth to the Archean. They find that modern-Earth methane (1.65e-6 VMR) is undetectable at any tested SNR up to 20, while Archean-level methane (7.07e-3 VMR) is detectable at all tested SNRs and bandpass widths. They also find that water vapor masks methane: as H2O abundance rises, the SNR needed to detect CH4 rises, and conversely H2O detectability depends on CH4 abundance. These results matter because they set concrete signal-to-noise and wavelength requirements for the Habitable Worlds Observatory's search for life on Earth twins.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the KEN grid set: precomputed geometric albedo spectra generated with the Planetary Spectrum Generator (PSG) over 0.2–2 µm, each grid spanning six parameters (surface pressure, surface albedo, gravity, cloud fraction, and the grid's three molecular constituents; the background gas is N2). Retrievals interpolate from these grids rather than running radiative transfer in real time, then use nested sampling (PSGnest) and the log-Bayes factor between models with and without a molecule to declare a detection strong (lnB ≥ 5), weak, or absent. The KEN grids isolate overlapping spectral features: CH4 is placed in the same grid as H2O, CO2, and N2O so that confusion between species is captured, while orthogonal molecules are separated into different grids.

What would settle it

An independent test would repeat the same abundance-versus-SNR grid retrievals using a radiative-transfer model that includes non-constant vertical mixing ratios, scattering hazes, and realistic cloud phase functions; if the SNR required for strong CH4 detection at 1.1 µm shifts by more than a factor of two in the high-H2O regime, the reported inverse H2O–CH4 correlation is an artifact of the model setup.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that methane detectability in the 0.8–1.5 µm reflected-light spectrum of an Earth twin is controlled jointly by CH4 abundance, H2O abundance, bandpass width, and wavelength, with H2O absorption overlapping and masking CH4 features. Specifically, the authors report that a modern-Earth methane level of 1.65×10−6 VMR produces no detection at any SNR ≤ 20, whereas an Archean-Earth level of 7.07×10−3 VMR is strongly detected at every tested SNR and bandpass width. The required SNR for a strong CH4 detection falls steeply with abundance: 9 at 4.15×10−4 VMR, 5 at 1.65×10−3 VMR, and 3 at 7.07×10−3 VMR, with the best bandpass centers near 1.05 µm and 0.9 µm. Removing H2O from the fiducial spectrum lowers the detectable CH4 abundance by more than an order of magnitude, demonstrating that the reported correlation is a masking effect and not an instrument artifact.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis presupposes that PSG's radiative-transfer spectra, computed with constant gas mixing ratios, a single cloud fraction, a fixed temperature profile, and N2 as the only background gas, are accurate enough to represent real Earth-like exoplanets between 0.8 and 1.5 µm, and that the detectability metric computed on PSG-simulated data reflects detectability on real observations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observational requirements for HWO should be set by Archean-Earth methane levels if CH4 is a target; modern-Earth levels cannot serve as a design driver for the 0.8–1.5 µm range.
  • A CH4 detection at low to moderate abundance is not interpretable without simultaneously constraining H2O, since water vapor can suppress the CH4 signal below detection.
  • The 1.1 µm region is the best compromise for detecting both CH4 and H2O; wavelengths beyond about 1.3 µm are poor for both molecules at the tested SNRs.
  • Required SNR for strong CH4 detection scales from about 9 at 4.15×10−4 VMR to 3 at 7.07×10−3 VMR, giving a concrete exposure-time target for mission planning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that a null CH4 detection by HWO will be ambiguous: it could mean no biogenic methane, a modern-Earth-like abundance, or a methane-rich atmosphere hidden by water vapor, so abundance-agnostic biosignature claims will need H2O priors.
  • The same KEN grid architecture could be applied to the CH4–CO2 pair in the near-infrared, where CO2 features also overlap H2O, to predict similar confusion for carbon-bearing biosignatures.
  • One testable extension is to run the retrievals on real Earthshine spectra (sunlight reflected by Earth) binned to the same bandpasses, which would check whether the PSG-based masking correlation survives realistic atmospheric complexity.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the KEN grids, a set of six-parameter geometric albedo grids for 0.2–2 μm generated with the Planetary Spectrum Generator (PSG) through the new Gridder pipeline, and applies them to a Bayesian detectability study of CH4 in reflected light from an Earth-like exoplanet. The authors validate the grids against PSG-simulated truth, then compute log-Bayes factors from PSGnest retrievals over 25 bandpasses between 0.8 and 1.5 μm, with 20%, 30%, and 40% widths at R=140 and R=70. They report that a modern-Earth CH4 abundance is undetectable up to SNR=20, that an Archean-Earth abundance is detectable at all SNRs and bandpass widths tested, and that CH4 detectability degrades as H2O abundance increases because of overlapping absorption features.

Significance. If the quantitative claims survive, the paper provides a useful, publicly available grid infrastructure and a concrete, evidence-based framework for setting HWO observing requirements in the 0.8–1.5 μm region. The interpolation-error validation and the use of log-Bayes factor comparisons are genuine strengths, and the qualitative conclusion that H2O can mask CH4 at low CH4 abundance is an important caution for biosignature surveys. The magnitude of the contribution is incremental within the BARBIE series, but the release of KEN grids and the explicit degeneracy analysis make it a valuable community resource.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §3.2; §5] The claim that an Archean CH4 level is 'detectable at all SNRs and bandpass widths' is not supported by the data. The retrievals are run at discrete SNR values (3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 20) and only at 20%, 30%, and 40% bandpass widths; no retrieval is performed at SNR<3, and the paper defers a 10% bandpass to future work. Since the log-Bayes factor must approach zero as SNR approaches zero, the literal 'all SNRs' claim is false and could mislead requirements setting. Please rephrase to 'all tested SNRs (≥3) and bandpass widths (20–40%)' and add a caveat about the untested low-SNR and narrow-bandpass regime. The related statement that modern CH4 is undetectable 'at any SNR ≤20' should likewise be restricted to the discrete SNR values tested.
  2. [§3.2, Figures 8–9] The required-SNR values are reported as exact integers (e.g., SNR of 9, 5, and 3) without propagated or sampling uncertainties. The location of a strong-detection threshold depends on the stochasticity of the evidence estimate and the spacing of the SNR grid; differences such as SNR=5 versus SNR=9 could be within that noise. Please provide estimates of evidence uncertainty from repeated retrievals or an explicit statement that the quoted SNRs are grid-resolution lower/upper bounds, not precise requirements.
  3. [§2.1; §3.1] The validation is internal: both the 'true' spectra and the retrieval forward models are generated with PSG, so the exercise demonstrates grid interpolation accuracy and retrieval self-consistency but not the fidelity of the PSG atmosphere model (constant VMRs, fixed temperature profile, simple cloud fraction, N2-only background). The absolute SNR requirements inherit any systematic errors in PSG's opacities, cloud treatment, or missing physics (e.g., hazes, non-constant VMR). Please state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, compare one or two end-to-end cases against an independent radiative transfer model or observed Earthshine spectra.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Introduction] In the first paragraph, 'drastically effected' should be 'drastically affected'.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'H2o' should be 'H2O'.
  3. [§3.2] The text after Figure 8 contains 'sim4', 'sim6', and 'sim8' where the approximation symbol '∼' is missing.
  4. [§3.1] The sentence 'any molecule at such low abundances does effect spectral change' should likely read 'does not affect spectral change'.
  5. [Figure 9] The caption for panel (d) contains '1.47 8µm' with an erroneous space; it should be '1.478 µm'.
  6. [§4] The sentence 'This confirms thatd H2O are degenerate' contains a typo; it should read 'This confirms that H2O and CH4 are degenerate'.
  7. [Table 1] The table header 'T able 1' has a spurious space.
  8. [§2.1] Gridder is cited as 'Himes et al. in prep'; if it is not yet publicly available, please provide a repository or archival reference to support reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the detectability analysis is a self-consistent injection-recovery study, and the overbroad 'all SNRs' phrasing is a correctness/overgeneralization issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an end-to-end forward-model simulation: the KEN grids are generated with PSG, synthetic observations are drawn from PSG at known CH4/H2O abundances, and PSGnest nested-sampling retrievals compute log-evidence values that are converted to log-Bayes factors using the externally defined Benneke & Seager (2013) thresholds. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction; the required SNRs are outputs of Bayesian model comparison on the simulated spectra, not inputs. The same PSG model is used both to build the retrieval grid and to generate the 'observed' spectra, which makes the experiment a measure of model self-consistency rather than a fidelity test against real planets; this is a limitation for astrophysical interpretation but not a circularity, because the detectability outcomes are not equal to the assumed abundances by construction. Self-citations to S23 and BARBIE1/2 describe a methodology that is summarized in Section 2.2 and implemented in public code (PSG/PSGnest), so the argument does not rest on an unverified self-citation. The abstract's claim that Archean CH4 is 'detectable at all SNRs and bandpass widths' overstates the tested discrete SNR grid (lowest tested SNR is 3) and the tested bandpass widths (20%, 30%, 40%), but overgeneralization is a correctness risk, not a circular step. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or text.

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

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the PSG forward model and the coverage of the KEN grid parameter space. No free parameters are fitted; the abundance values are inputs from the literature, and the observational setup (SNR grid, bandpass widths) is chosen by the authors. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption PSG radiative transfer model accurately computes reflected-light geometric albedo spectra for Earth-like planets in the 0.2-2 micrometer range.
    All synthetic observations and grid spectra are produced with PSG; systematic errors in PSG would directly bias the detectability thresholds. Invoked in Section 2.1 and Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption The six-parameter KEN grid (surface pressure, surface albedo, gravity, and three molecules per grid) spans the plausible diversity of Earth-like exoplanet atmospheres relevant to CH4 and H2O detectability.
    Retrievals are restricted to the grid's parameter ranges; an atmosphere outside this space would be mis-retrieved. Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption CH4 and H2O abundance values in Tables 1 and 2 represent plausible Earth epochs and test scenarios.
    The detectability results are reported as functions of these assumed volume mixing ratios, drawn from Kasting (2005) and Kaltenegger et al. (2007); the test grid is chosen to understand the inflection point. Section 2.2 and Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption Constant-with-altitude volume mixing ratios are sufficient for representing molecular absorption features.
    The grids use isotropic VMRs; real atmospheres have altitude-dependent profiles. Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Gaussian noise with a specified SNR per channel is an adequate model of coronagraphic observations.
    No correlated noise, detector systematics, or chromatic errors are modeled. Section 2.2.
  • standard math The log-Bayes factor thresholds (lnB less than 2.5 unconstrained, 2.5 to 5 weak, greater than 5 strong) are valid detection criteria.
    Standard nested sampling evidence comparison per Benneke and Seager (2013). Section 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Analysis for Remote Biosignature Identification on exoEarths (BARBIE) \RNum{3}: Introducing the KEN." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O6TLF3WL

@misc{pith2026241115089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Analysis for Remote Biosignature Identification on exoEarths (BARBIE) \RNum3: Introducing the KEN},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O6TLF3WL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15089}
}
read the original abstract

We deploy a newly-generated set of geometric albedo spectral grids to examine the detectability of methane (CH4) in the reflected-light spectrum of an Earth-like exoplanet at visible and near-infrared wavelengths with a future exoplanet imaging mission. By quantifying the detectability as a function of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and molecular abundance, we can constrain the best methods of detection with the high-contrast space-based coronagraphy slated for the next generation telescopes such as the Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO). We used 25 bandpasses between 0.8 and 1.5 microns. The abundances range from a modern-Earth level to an Archean-Earth level, driven by abundances found in available literature. We constrain the optimal 20%, 30%, and 40% bandpasses based on the effective SNR of the data, and investigate the impact of spectral confusion between CH4 and H2O on the detectability of each one. We find that a modern-Earth level of CH4 is not detectable, while an Archean Earth level of CH4 would be detectable at all SNRs and bandpass widths. Crucially, we find that CH4 detectability is inversely correlated with H2o abundance, with required SNR increasing as H2O abundance increases, while H2O detectability depends on CH4 abundance and selected observational wavelength, implying that science requirements for the characterization of Earth-like planet atmospheres in the VIS/NIR should consider the abundances of both species in tandem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15089 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In the top panel, we present a representative spectrum from our work where molecular contributions are visible, with the y-axis representing the geometric albedo. In the bottom panel, we present the absorbance contributions of every molecule available in the KEN grids, as well as the Rayleigh scattering also included: H2O, O2, O3, CH4, CO, CO2, SO2, and N2O, with the y-axis representing absorption. The x-axes are bo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Herein we present a modern, 50% cloudy, Earth-like spectrum for each grid over the full wavelength range, to illustrate the absence and presence of each molecule per grid. Each legend shows the name of the grid along with the present molecular constituents, with geometric albedo on the y-axis and wavelength on the x-axis. The highlighted regions portray the UV, Visible, and NIR wavelength regions, and they are prese… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Interpolation error across a 6D retrieval across parameter space. The retrieval error is defined as the difference between the true and retrieved values. The pink dots represent retrievals performed on a spectrum interpolated from the KEN grid, and the purple stars represent retrievals performed on a PSG-calculated spectrum. The error bars on these points are drawn as the 68% credible regions. The left column shows … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plot for Archean CH4 abundance. The 68% credible regions are shown as pink shading in the 1D marginalized posterior distributions along the diagonal of the corner plot, and the true values are represented by black lines in the diagonals of the corner plot, and b…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Summary of the bandpasses where CH4 and H2O are detectable for 3×10−3 (modern) H2O and varying CH4 based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Heatmap plots illustrating detection strength as a function of SNR and varying CH4 abundance with two H2O values. SNR is on the y-axis, CH4 abundance is on the x-axis, and the color bar shows the range of log-Bayes Factor (lnB) from 0 to 5 to describe detection strengt…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Multi-panel plot illustrating overlap of H2O and CH4 features in the NIR wavelength regime. Wavelength is on the x-axis, Geometric Albedo (I/F) is on the y-axis. Each panel shows a modern level of H2O in dark purple, and a Phanerozoic, Early Archean, and Late Archean a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SNRs for Strong CH4 Detection. Heatmaps of CH4 detectability as a function of molecular abundance for R = 70, at 1.11 µm (top row) and centered on the 1.3 µm feature (bottom row). We present 20%, 30%, and 40% bandpass widths. y-axis: CH4 abundance, x-axis:H2O abundance…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SNRs for Strong H2O Detection. All plot facets remain the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SNRs for Strong H2O Detection. Plot of the lowest SNR values at which a strong detection is achieved for all H2O values in our degeneracy investigation at (a) 1.1 µm and (b) 1.34 µm with a 20% bandpass at R=70. The H2O VMR values are on the x-axis, with SNR on the y-a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Meadows, V

    Arney, G., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 873, doi: 10.1089/ast.2015.1422

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

    Benneke, B., & Seager, S. 2013, ApJ, 778, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/153 2013

  3. [3]

    2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y —

    Buchner, J. 2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y —. 2019, PASP, 131, 108005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc —. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    doi:10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y 2016

  4. [4]

    D., Himes, M

    Cobb, A. D., Himes, M. D., Soboczenski, F., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2390

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2390 2019

  5. [5]

    2022, AJ, 163, 299, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6b97

    Damiano, M., & Hu, R. 2022, AJ, 163, 299, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6b97

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac6b97 2022

  6. [6]

    2023, AJ, 166, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acefd3

    Damiano, M., Hu, R., & Mennesson, B. 2023, AJ, 166, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acefd3

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acefd3 2023

  7. [7]

    D., & Meadows, V

    Robinson, T. D., & Meadows, V. S. 2014, ApJ, 792, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/90 Introducing the KEN 15

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/2/90 2014

  8. [8]

    K., Robinson, T

    Feng, Y. K., Robinson, T. D., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab95c

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aab95c 2018

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  2. [10]

    J., Kitzmann, D., et al

    Fisher, C., Hoeijmakers, H. J., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7a92

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    S., & Lustig-Yaeger, J

    Gilbert-Janizek, S., Meadows, V. S., & Lustig-Yaeger, J. 2024, PSJ, 5, 148, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad381e

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    D., Cubillos, P

    Harrington, J., Himes, M. D., Cubillos, P. E., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 80, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac3513

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Harrington, J., Cobb, A

    Himes, M. D., Harrington, J., Cobb, A. D., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 91, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abe3fd

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    T., Pueyo, L., et al

    Juanola-Parramon, R., Zimmerman, N. T., Pueyo, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 034001, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.3.034001

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    A., & Jucks, K

    Kaltenegger, L., Traub, W. A., & Jucks, K. W. 2007, ApJ, 658, 598, doi: 10.1086/510996

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    2005, Precambrian Research, 137, 119, doi: 10.1016/j.precamres.2005.03.002

    Kasting, J. 2005, Precambrian Research, 137, 119, doi: 10.1016/j.precamres.2005.03.002

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    Krissansen-Totton, J., Olson, S., & Catling, D. C. 2018, Science Advances, 4, eaao5747, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aao5747

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Villanueva, G

    Latouf, N., Mandell, A. M., Villanueva, G. L., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acebc3 —. 2024, AJ, 167, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0fde

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Line, M. R. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/137

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    E., Marley, M

    Lupu, R. E., Marley, M. S., Lewis, N., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 217, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/217 M´ arquez-Neila, P., Fisher, C., Sznitman, R., & Heng, K. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 719, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0504-2 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine...

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    S., et al

    Nayak, M., Lupu, R., Marley, M. S., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 034401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/129/973/034401

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Reinhard, C

    Planavsky, N. J., Reinhard, C. T., Wang, X., et al. 2014, Science, 346, 635, doi: 10.1126/science.1258410

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Por, E. H. 2020, ApJ, 888, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3857

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    D., & Salvador, A

    Robinson, T. D., & Salvador, A. 2023, PSJ, 4, 10, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acac9a

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Huby, E., Absil, O., et al

    Ruane, G. J., Huby, E., Absil, O., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526561

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    L., & Kasting, J

    Schindler, T. L., & Kasting, J. F. 2000, Icarus, 145, 262, doi: 10.1006/icar.2000.6340

    2000

  19. [27]

    W., Kiang, N

    Schwieterman, E. W., Kiang, N. Y., Parenteau, M. N., et al. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 663, doi: 10.1089/ast.2017.1729

    2018

  20. [28]

    Smith, A. J. R. W., Feng, Y. K., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5a8a

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    C., Mennesson, B., Bryson, S., et al

    Stark, C. C., Mennesson, B., Bryson, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19418, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19418

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    M., Villanueva, G

    Susemiehl, N., Mandell, A. M., Villanueva, G. L., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace43b The LUVOIR Team. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.06219. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06219

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    L., Liuzzi, G., Faggi, S., et al

    Villanueva, G. L., Liuzzi, G., Faggi, S., et al. 2022, Fundamentals of the Planetary Spectrum Generator (Self-Published)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Mandell, A. M. 2018, JQSRT, 217, 86, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.05.023

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Wogan, N., Krissansen-Totton, J., & Catling, D. C. 2020, PSJ, 1, 58, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abb99e

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    V., Crouse, J., Arney, G., et al

    Young, A. V., Crouse, J., Arney, G., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 7, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad09b1

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Zingales, T., & Waldmann, I. P. 2018, AJ, 156, 268, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae77c

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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